This started as a public argument between Daniel Miessler and Zack Korman about a single, hard question: should the most powerful open-source AI models be released to everyone with no controls — or should the industry, experts, and government agree on some basic guardrails first?
It's a real disagreement between people who agree on almost all of the facts. So rather than shout past each other, we wrote down what we both accept as true, stated each side as fairly as we could, and put it to you. Watch the testimony, read both arguments, and vote for the one you actually believe — then tell us why.
Watch — Dario Amodei testifies to the Senate
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on the potential regulation of frontier AI.
Where both sides agree
The software running our critical infrastructure is still, after decades of checking and flexing, horribly vulnerable.
The new AI models are becoming genuinely surprising — and concerning — in their ability to find and exploit vulnerabilities.
The chances of serious compromises of critical systems are very high, and increasing.
There's also real danger in handing control of AI to non-democratic governments, or to unelected industry leaders who could exert control over regular people.
The ideal world is everyone having access to the highest quality of intelligence — so the rich and powerful don't get much smarter AI than everyone else.
The disagreement — pick the one you believe
The two arguments below are shown in random order, and neither carries a name. Read them on their merits, not on who's on the left.