Excellent thoughts, Jess. Your perspective on AI regulation resonates strongly with themes I've been exploring around what I call the "Rebuild Era" of software - a period where trust, intentionality, and robust compliance infrastructure are becoming foundational rather than afterthoughts.
Your point about preventing a "race to the bottom" on safety particularly strikes me. We're seeing this same dynamic across the broader software ecosystem, where the rapid-growth mentality that defined the previous era is giving way to more cautious, intentional development approaches. The macroeconomic environment has reinforced this shift, making companies more focused on sustainable, trustworthy systems rather than pure velocity.
Your emphasis on transparency and third-party visibility aligns well with the emerging compliance-first mindset I'm observing. Companies are increasingly building AI governance as infrastructure - not as a regulatory burden, but as a competitive advantage that enables trust at scale. The "defense in depth" approach you describe mirrors how forward-thinking organizations are thinking about compliance more broadly: layered, systematic, and built into the development process from day one.
From a European perspective (which you touch on regarding UK leadership), there's something particularly interesting about how regulatory frameworks here are becoming innovation accelerators rather than inhibitors. The organizations that embrace rigorous AI governance early are likely to have significant advantages as these practices become table stakes globally.
I'd be curious about your thoughts on how AI regulation might evolve differently in this more cautious macroeconomic environment versus the hypergrowth era we're leaving behind. Does the current climate actually make thoughtful regulation more politically tractable?
Having discovered a major technical issue - these are some additional thoughts to those above - about how AI regulation needs mechanism for people to register discovered issues as we do in medical devices or the aeronautical industry where safety is a prime issue.
Excellent thoughts, Jess. Your perspective on AI regulation resonates strongly with themes I've been exploring around what I call the "Rebuild Era" of software - a period where trust, intentionality, and robust compliance infrastructure are becoming foundational rather than afterthoughts.
Your point about preventing a "race to the bottom" on safety particularly strikes me. We're seeing this same dynamic across the broader software ecosystem, where the rapid-growth mentality that defined the previous era is giving way to more cautious, intentional development approaches. The macroeconomic environment has reinforced this shift, making companies more focused on sustainable, trustworthy systems rather than pure velocity.
Your emphasis on transparency and third-party visibility aligns well with the emerging compliance-first mindset I'm observing. Companies are increasingly building AI governance as infrastructure - not as a regulatory burden, but as a competitive advantage that enables trust at scale. The "defense in depth" approach you describe mirrors how forward-thinking organizations are thinking about compliance more broadly: layered, systematic, and built into the development process from day one.
From a European perspective (which you touch on regarding UK leadership), there's something particularly interesting about how regulatory frameworks here are becoming innovation accelerators rather than inhibitors. The organizations that embrace rigorous AI governance early are likely to have significant advantages as these practices become table stakes globally.
I'd be curious about your thoughts on how AI regulation might evolve differently in this more cautious macroeconomic environment versus the hypergrowth era we're leaving behind. Does the current climate actually make thoughtful regulation more politically tractable?
I explore these themes more in my recent post on the Rebuild Era: https://1000software.substack.com/p/the-rebuild-era-software-in-a-cautiously - would love to continue this conversation about how regulatory thoughtfulness and business sustainability can align.
Having discovered a major technical issue - these are some additional thoughts to those above - about how AI regulation needs mechanism for people to register discovered issues as we do in medical devices or the aeronautical industry where safety is a prime issue.
https://kevinhaylett.substack.com/p/there-is-no-ai-safety