Eric Daimler

I read warnings like this for a year in the White House. The ones that moved anything could be disagreed with. Disagree with one of mine. That is how this starts moving. (9/9) linkedin.com/posts/ericdaim…

3. Make the connections between AI systems checkable by machine. The dangerous failures happen at the seams, where one system feeds another. (8/9)

1. Make AI carry insurance wherever failure can hurt a stranger. Insurers demand proof before they price a risk. (6/9)

Policy moves when someone proposes a rule that somebody would pay for. You don't do that first, because people will disagree. And therefore not sign. So, three proposals, free: (5/9)

What does the text create? Signatures. In exchange for quick signatures, content got traded away. It is a census of who now takes radical AI seriously. A census moves nothing. (4/9)

A question for the 2,000 signing: to what were you agreeing? Better institutions, sensible incentives, awareness of risk? Please locate for me the person who disagrees. (3/9)

The statement: AI may remake the economy faster than the Industrial Revolution, so "we must act now." (2/9)

Have a problem but no solution? Sounds like a request for a research agenda. This week 16 Nobel laureates signed four sentences, and nearly 2,000 economists and tech leaders jumped on board. (1/9)

Testing can't catch this. A test checks the paths you thought to try. The one that drains you is the one you didn't.Avionics, rail, and chip design solved it long ago: prove the system can't reach the forbidden state at all.Insurers priced this risk, found no floor, and walked. Who builds the floor they wouldn't? (2/2)

A machine just leaked your most confidential file. It broke no rules to do it.An AI agent had three powers: read files, make a decision, take action. Each one approved. Each one harmless alone.It read a confidential doc, judged it relevant, sent it outside. No permission violated. The harm was in the path, not the step. (1/2)

6/6 Longer version, on Bezos and the artificial general auditor: ericdaimler.substack.com/p/the-artifici…

5/ The binding constraint won't be how fast we generate. It'll be how fast we can prove. And proof doesn't run on the hardware the $7.6T is buying. The future is formal.

1/ Trillion is the new billion and I'm still working on my first decacorn. Goldman now puts the AI build-out at $7.6T through 2031. The most interesting number in it is still zero: the line that funds proof. It isn't there.

9/ The NYT piece: nytimes.com/2026/06/11/tec…

8/ Somebody will build the artificial general auditor. It cannot be probabilistic. The future is formal.

7/ Generation: $12,000,000,000. Certification of machine-designed systems: $0. The binding constraint on this industry will be proof throughput. Nobody is funding it yet.

6/ AI can generate a hundred designs for a high-rise. Engineering is knowing which one stands, from the bedrock to the wind on the 75th floor.

5/ When the designer is a probability distribution, who is accountable for the design?