EP 35: Who Actually Controls AI? The Governance Gap Explained

There's no international treaty governing AI, no agreed definition of "safe AI," and nobody with actual authority over frontier model deployment. A handful of CEOs make decisions with civilizational implications while governance structures lag years behind. This episode examines who's responsible for AI governance. The current state? Fragmented and lagging. The US has no comprehensive federal AI legislation—Biden's executive order was rolled back under Trump. The EU AI Act is most comprehensive but heavy provisions don't kick in for years. China's regulation focuses on censorship over safety. The UK AI Safety Institute does serious work but has no enforcement authority. What's working? AI safety institutes are building evaluation capacity. Open-source releases like DeepSeek enable external research. Academic safety community advances interpretability work. Market pressure matters—Anthropic gained users by taking public safety stands.   Three urgent needs: mandatory disclosure requirements for high-capability systems, international coordination with shared evaluation standards (AI safety summits need teeth), and public deliberation beyond experts and officials.   This concludes the AI Governance and Regulation series. People who understand AI deeply - technically, commercially, ethically, politically - will shape governance's future. Stay curious, stay critical, never outsource thinking to any single company or voice.