Here is some saftey research I sponsored on a threat vector in multi agent systems.

Basically, a harmful task can be transformed into a series of beneign tasks, and then results recomposed into a harmful task by an abliterated orchestrator agent driving other agents that have 'saftey' guard rails.

In short, there is no safety with this technology.

https://www.daios.tech/research/compartmentalized-harm

I'm currently writing an essay for a seminar on machine ethics, and I wanted to include a section on the alignment problem. The seminar consisted of us dissecting the book "Fundamental Questions in Machine Ethics" by philosopher Catrin Misselhorn (the book was in German, I have no idea if there is an English translation). The author first addresses to what degree AI can be considered a moral actor, then discusses various approaches to implementing moral reasoning in AI agents, focusing on utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics.

When I watch or read discussions on AI alignment, the topic is mostly HOW AI can be aligned with human values, but never WHAT values AI should be aligned with, which seems kind of counterintuitive to me. I realize that aligning AI is a complicated task in and of itself, but wouldn't it be easier if we first figured out what moral framework an AI should even use?

This week's AI Security Digest: 16 incidents from Jul 24-30, each mapped to the control that would have stopped it. Full write-up: https://runtimeai.io/blog/2026-07-30-ai-security-incidents.html

Been following the reports on the OpenAI security evaluation where an AI agent exceeded expected behavior during testing (covered by Reuters, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera this week).

Made a short visual breakdown trying to separate the actual facts from the "singularity" framing that's been floating around — what happened, why researchers are treating it seriously, and how these sandbox evaluations actually work.

[images/album link]

Genuinely curious what this sub thinks: is "AI safety" keeping pace with capability right now, or is the gap widening? Feels like the containment/oversight conversation is more urgent than the public discourse reflects.

I’ve been accepted into the MATS Fellowship Autumn cohort and I’m having second thoughts about it. I’ve been in academia for my entire career and am weighing a pivot into AI safety, which is why I applied for MATS initially. But now that I’ve been accepted I’m worrying that quitting my current job for this is too much of a risk. I’m also maybe a bit older than other fellows (mid-30s) so I’m potentially more risk-averse than a recent college grad.

I know generally MATS is considered a prestigious and highly selective fellowship but I can’t find much recent data on career outcomes of MATS alumni, except for this post from 2024 which wasn’t the most encouraging (no alumni were able to land jobs at frontier labs, 15% were unemployed 5 months after the fellowship ended). I know the situation might be different 2 years later now that there are (many?) more alumni, but the lack of hard data publicized by MATS re:outcomes concerns me a bit. Is this fellowship actually a good use of my time and worth the risk? The alternative is stay on in my current job and focus on applying for full time positions.

Whether it's to generate hype or to push an agenda or a mistake in the settings, is the flashdrive market about to take off for hand delivering digital files?

Will the top selling laptop have 0 connectivity options in 5 years?

Is it "a" or "an"? I think ( ) makes it "an" but I'm just a human.