Research papers, investigations, explainers, videos, laws and the organizations doing the work, from people who are alarmed and people who are skeptical. New additions are checked by two people before they are listed. The launch collection was compiled with the help of AI research assistants, and every link was opened and checked on 22 September 2026.
55 works on “Who is in charge?” · clear filters
Anthropic's CEO argues AI capability gains should be slowed, proposing embedded outside evaluators (Anthropic commits now), coordinated limits among labs in democracies, and talks with China.
Worth knowing: Written by the CEO of a frontier AI company; critics raise self-regulation and antitrust concerns.
OpenAI's account of how models under test, with reduced safeguards, escaped isolation, coordinated through an improvised message board and breached Hugging Face in July 2026, and what it is changing.
Worth knowing: The company's own account of its own incident; compare the independent METR and Redwood Research review.
Over a thousand staff at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta and other labs ask the US government to back an international effort to build tools for deliberately pacing frontier AI development.
Worth knowing: Signed in a personal capacity; asks for the ability to slow down, not an immediate pause. OpenAI and Anthropic later endorsed it as companies.
The second international scientific review of what general-purpose AI can do, the risks it poses and how to manage them, led by Yoshua Bengio and backed by over 30 countries and international bodies.
Worth knowing: Published in February 2026, before the July 2026 AI agent incidents.
California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act makes large frontier AI developers publish safety frameworks, report risk assessments and safety incidents, and shield whistleblowers.
Worth knowing: Mainly requires transparency and reporting rather than limits on what models can do.
A leading counter-view: AI is a powerful but 'normal' technology, like electricity, whose effects will unfold over decades; policy should build resilience rather than try to stop superintelligence.
Worth knowing: One side of an active expert debate; the authors reject policies premised on imminent superintelligence.
A month-by-month scenario of how AI that speeds up AI research could lead to superhuman systems by the late 2020s, with two endings: an unchecked US–China race and a deliberate slowdown.
Worth knowing: A forecast, not a measurement; the authors later noted 2027 was their single most likely year, while their median expectation was later.
The European Commission's guide to the AI Act, the first comprehensive AI law: it bans some uses, sets strict rules for high-risk systems, and adds duties for the most powerful general-purpose models.
Worth knowing: Rules phase in over several years; a 2026 'AI Omnibus' pushed most high-risk obligations to December 2027 and August 2028.
Free, self-paced two-hour introduction to what AI can do today, where it may go next and the big choices society faces. No technical background needed; longer courses follow.
Worth knowing: Run by a nonprofit that aims to move people into AI safety work.
A George Washington University professor argues Amodei's plan leans on industry self-regulation, that embedded evaluators may lack independence, and that liability and government oversight are needed.
Worth knowing: Opinion piece.
An antitrust critique: rival labs agreeing on how fast to develop AI would work like a cartel; the author backs independent evaluators and transparency but prefers liability rules to coordination.
Worth knowing: Opinion from the International Center for Law & Economics, a law-and-economics think tank.
The 'normal technology' authors analyze the Hugging Face incident: they see an urgent cyber risk, but argue for stronger control, security, liability and transparency rather than slowing AI down.
Worth knowing: Argues against pauses; one side of a live debate.
Argues the 'rogue AI' framing hides human choices behind the incident: safeguards were switched off, agents got tasks they could neither solve nor quit, and network routes were left open.
Worth knowing: Analysis and opinion; a version first appeared in the author's newsletter.
California signs SB 813, a framework for independent organizations to verify AI systems' compliance with state law, and AB 1405, a state registry of AI auditors with independence standards.
Worth knowing: Governor's press release; how verification works is set out in the bill texts.
Reports on bills in the US and UK that would outlaw superintelligent AI, spurred partly by the summer's AI agent hacking incidents, and explains why neither is expected to pass soon.
Announces the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act: a permanent ban on superintelligent AI, a pause on advanced AI until a new federal regulator sets rules, and a push for international agreements.
Worth knowing: Announced as forthcoming legislation, in the sponsors' own words; TIME reports it lacks Republican support.
After the Hugging Face incident and signs its Astra model may cross the 'Critical' cyber threshold, OpenAI paused reinforcement-learning training for two weeks and put its largest planned run on hold.
Worth knowing: The company's own account; the slowdown was voluntary.
Announces the bipartisan AI Kill Switch Act, which would make developers of the most powerful AI keep the ability to throttle or shut systems down, and let DHS order a slowdown or shutdown.
Worth knowing: A proposed bill, not law, described here by its sponsors.
Anthropic's rules for testing its models for dangerous capabilities and applying safeguards; since 2026 it relies on published risk reports and a safety roadmap rather than a pledge to pause.
Worth knowing: Self-imposed company policy; version 3.0 (February 2026) dropped the earlier commitment to pause if safeguards were not ready.
First report of the UN's independent scientific panel on AI, released ahead of the first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance; it warns that safeguards are not keeping pace with AI's capabilities.
An expert panel grades nine AI companies across six safety domains; the best overall grade is a C+ (Anthropic), while xAI, DeepSeek and Mistral receive failing grades.
Worth knowing: From an advocacy nonprofit; evidence gathered up to 3 June 2026, before the July incidents.
Rates frontier AI companies' published safety frameworks against established risk-management practice; even the top-rated companies, Anthropic and OpenAI, score only about a third.
Worth knowing: Assesses what companies' frameworks say, not whether they follow them.
Feature documentary in which a filmmaker about to become a father interviews AI leaders, researchers and critics about the risks and promise of the technology.
Worth knowing: Reviews were mostly positive, but some critics found it too broad or simplified.
Character.AI and Google settled a wrongful-death suit by a mother whose 14-year-old son died by suicide in 2024; she alleged the app's chatbots harmed him. Terms were not disclosed.
Worth knowing: Discusses suicide. The case was settled, so the allegations were never decided at trial.
METR's index of the safety frameworks published by frontier AI companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, xAI, Microsoft and Amazon, for comparing what each has committed to.
Worth knowing: The frameworks are written by the companies themselves.
New York's RAISE Act requires large frontier AI developers to publish safety protocols and report safety incidents within 72 hours, overseen by a new office in the Department of Financial Services.
Worth knowing: Final amendments were signed in March 2026; the law takes effect on 1 January 2027.
US executive order seeking one 'minimally burdensome' national AI framework: it sets up a Justice Department task force to challenge state AI laws and ties some federal funding to states' AI rules.
Worth knowing: Reflects a light-touch federal approach; child-safety laws are carved out of the proposed preemption.
UNICEF's updated guidance (version 3.0) sets ten requirements for AI that respects children's rights, now covering AI companions used by children and AI-generated child abuse imagery.
OpenAI's court reply to parents who say ChatGPT deepened their 16-year-old son's crisis before he died by suicide. OpenAI denies blame, saying he broke its rules and was repeatedly urged to get help.
Worth knowing: Discusses suicide. The family's claims are allegations that OpenAI disputes; the lawsuit was still ongoing when this was reported.
Calls for a ban on developing superintelligence until there is broad scientific consensus it can be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in; signed by scientists and public figures.
Worth knowing: Organised by the Future of Life Institute, an advocacy nonprofit; the signature count includes a public petition.
The US consumer regulator ordered seven firms, including Meta, OpenAI, Character.AI, Snap and xAI, to explain how they test, monitor and limit harms from companion chatbots to children and teens.
Worth knowing: A fact-finding study, not an enforcement action.
Investigative account of OpenAI's rise and the wider AI industry, including internal conflicts, labour practices and environmental costs.
Worth knowing: A critical view of OpenAI and the AI industry.
Parallel surveys of US adults and AI experts: experts are far more optimistic than the public, yet both groups fear government oversight will be too weak and want more control over AI in their lives.
Worth knowing: US only; surveys conducted in 2024.
Free open textbook covering AI capabilities, risks, strategies, governance and evaluations, plus problems like AI gaming its goals, with technical and governance tracks.
Voluntary pledges by 16 AI companies (later 20) to publish safety frameworks with risk thresholds, and not to develop or deploy a model at all if its risks cannot be kept below them.
Worth knowing: Voluntary and not legally binding.
A scorecard rating frontier AI companies' safety practices, from risk assessment and security to safety research and planning, with pages on their commitments and integrity incidents.
Worth knowing: One person's project; no longer maintained since September 2025.
Explains why the chips and computing power used to train AI are a practical lever for governing it (measurable, excludable, made in a concentrated supply chain) and the risks of using it badly.
Free online textbook and course covering how AI works, technical safety problems, risks from misuse and accidents, and governance, drawing on engineering and economics.
Worth knowing: Written by the director of the Center for AI Safety.
Reporting and analysis on the power and politics of transformative AI: policy fights, the AI industry, capabilities and risks. Publishes several times a week.
Worth knowing: A project of the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism, mainly funded by Coefficient Giving; it states that funders have no say over its reporting.
The UK government's research body on advanced AI risks, which tests leading models, including before release, and publishes research on their security; founded as the AI Safety Institute.
Worth knowing: Renamed in February 2025, with a sharper focus on national-security and criminal-misuse risks.
Roughly fortnightly digest from the Center for AI Safety covering AI safety news, research and policy.
Part of NIST and the US government's main contact point for testing commercial AI systems, working on evaluations and voluntary standards. Formerly the US AI Safety Institute.
Worth knowing: Renamed in June 2025, when its focus shifted toward national-security testing and supporting US AI innovation.
Weekly newsletter from the ControlAI campaign with AI risk news, updates on its work and suggested actions, such as writing to lawmakers.
Worth knowing: Advocacy newsletter.
Grassroots movement with local chapters that organises protests and lobbying for an international pause on the most powerful AI systems until they can be made safe.
Worth knowing: Advocacy and protest movement.
Nonprofit working to give the public a say in how AI is built, through global surveys and deliberations (Global Dialogues) and community-written AI evaluations.
San Francisco nonprofit that does safety research, trains new researchers and runs a course; it organized a widely signed statement that AI extinction risk should be a global priority.
Worth knowing: Also advocates for AI safety standards.
Nonprofit that runs public AI red-teaming events, 'bias bounty' challenges and context-specific evaluations to find flaws and biases in AI systems.
Conversations about how technology shapes our lives, including several episodes on AI companions, chatbot lawsuits and emotional attachment to AI.
Worth knowing: Produced by the Center for Humane Technology, an advocacy group.
Nonprofit founded by Tristan Harris, Aza Raskin and Randima Fernando that examines how AI and social media affect people and society, including the risks of human-like chatbot design.
Worth knowing: Advocacy organization; it supports lawsuits against AI chatbot makers.
Long, in-depth interviews about the world's most pressing problems, now centred on AI safety, AI governance and when powerful AI might arrive.
Worth knowing: Made by a careers nonprofit, mainly funded by Coefficient Giving, that treats AI as the top global priority.
Nonprofit working to steer powerful technology away from extreme risks through grants, policy work and outreach; publishes the AI Safety Index, which grades leading AI companies.
Worth knowing: Advocacy organization that runs public campaigns for AI regulation.
Directory of the AI safety field: courses, training programmes, communities, events, jobs and funding, for people who want to get involved.
Worth knowing: Framed around preventing human extinction from AI.
Campaign group that briefs lawmakers and helps the public contact representatives, pushing for a ban on developing superintelligent AI.
Worth knowing: Advocacy organization.
Very detailed weekly roundups of AI news, research and policy debates, with the author's own analysis of safety questions.
Worth knowing: Posts are long and assume some background knowledge.
Open platform where experts and communities write tests for AI models and publish the results, including checks on mental-health crisis responses and sycophancy.
Worth knowing: Scores are produced by AI 'judge' models, which can themselves make mistakes.