Maybe we have a different understanding of the term “red line”. For me, it describes something that a human should not do, rather than an event that shouldn’t happen. So if someone releases an unsafe model, a red line is crossed when the model violates some defined safety specification, not when there’s a tragic event (which may or may not be a result of crossing the red line). However, I agree that in both cases there’s the danger of increasing numbness, so too much red line-drawing which then is simply ignored is indeed bad.
Meaningful red lines must be formally defined in a technical, near real-time enforcement system* with political enforcement backing—treated as hard-limit bans, not alarms. Non-technical red lines raise the will for such solutions, if they are not:
too much red line-drawing
EU AI Act style—complex regulatory red lines that exclude critical risk, are enforcement-intractable (or reactive) and serve as concern-stoppers.
Lines that are foreseeable unenforceable or carry a definite outcome if crossed (‘RSI will lead to loss-of-control’ vs ’RSI is an unacceptable loss-of-control risk″).
*TAIG in the time of Huawei/GLM-5 does throw sand & pebbles in the gears.
Maybe we have a different understanding of the term “red line”. For me, it describes something that a human should not do, rather than an event that shouldn’t happen. So if someone releases an unsafe model, a red line is crossed when the model violates some defined safety specification, not when there’s a tragic event (which may or may not be a result of crossing the red line). However, I agree that in both cases there’s the danger of increasing numbness, so too much red line-drawing which then is simply ignored is indeed bad.
Meaningful red lines must be formally defined in a technical, near real-time enforcement system* with political enforcement backing—treated as hard-limit bans, not alarms. Non-technical red lines raise the will for such solutions, if they are not:
EU AI Act style—complex regulatory red lines that exclude critical risk, are enforcement-intractable (or reactive) and serve as concern-stoppers.
Lines that are foreseeable unenforceable or carry a definite outcome if crossed (‘RSI will lead to loss-of-control’ vs ’RSI is an unacceptable loss-of-control risk″).
*TAIG in the time of Huawei/GLM-5 does throw sand & pebbles in the gears.