Thanks so much for the thoughtful feedback! You’re absolutely right about the verbosity (part of the lawyer curse, I’m afraid) but that’s exactly why I’m here.
I really value input from people working closer to the technical foundations, and I’ll absolutely work on tightening the structure and making my core ask more legible.
You actually nailed the question I was trying to pose: “Can someone technical clarify how they believe these terms should be used?”
As for why I’m asking: I work in AI Governance for a multinational, and I also contribute feedback to regulatory initiatives adjacent to the European Commission (as part of independent policy research).
One challenge I’ve repeatedly encountered is that regulators often lump safety and security into one conceptual bucket. This creates risks of misclassification, like treating adversarial testing purely as a security concern, when the intent may be safety-critical (e.g., avoiding human harm).
So, my goal here was to open a conversation that helps bridge technical intuitions from the AI safety community into actionable regulatory framing.
I don’t want to just map these concepts onto compliance checklists, I want to understand how to reflect technical nuance in policy language without oversimplifying or misleading.
I’ll revise the post to be more concise and frontload the value proposition. And if you’re open to it, I’d love your thoughts on how I could improve specific parts.
Thanks again, this kind of feedback is exactly what I was hoping for!
Thanks so much for the thoughtful feedback! You’re absolutely right about the verbosity (part of the lawyer curse, I’m afraid) but that’s exactly why I’m here.
I really value input from people working closer to the technical foundations, and I’ll absolutely work on tightening the structure and making my core ask more legible.
You actually nailed the question I was trying to pose:
“Can someone technical clarify how they believe these terms should be used?”
As for why I’m asking: I work in AI Governance for a multinational, and I also contribute feedback to regulatory initiatives adjacent to the European Commission (as part of independent policy research).
One challenge I’ve repeatedly encountered is that regulators often lump safety and security into one conceptual bucket. This creates risks of misclassification, like treating adversarial testing purely as a security concern, when the intent may be safety-critical (e.g., avoiding human harm).
So, my goal here was to open a conversation that helps bridge technical intuitions from the AI safety community into actionable regulatory framing.
I don’t want to just map these concepts onto compliance checklists, I want to understand how to reflect technical nuance in policy language without oversimplifying or misleading.
I’ll revise the post to be more concise and frontload the value proposition. And if you’re open to it, I’d love your thoughts on how I could improve specific parts.
Thanks again, this kind of feedback is exactly what I was hoping for!