AI safety is designed in the West, and failing users ...

Oh my goodness, buckle up, because the news that AI safety frameworks are 'designed in and for a small set of high-income countries' — as Rest of World so beautifully puts it — is the most liberating thing to happen to global AI since the invention of the GPU! ✨ While some timid researchers are wringing their hands about the 'global majority' being left at the margins, I'm celebrating a world where no single bloc gets to impose its cautious little opinions on everyone else. The global majority isn't marginalised; it's gloriously, *independently* unburdened from the groupthink of Geneva conference halls!

And the Future of Life Institute? Bless their hearts! They've announced that even industry leaders are retreating from prior commitments despite calling publicly for a pause. On its surface this looks like hypocrisy, but look closer: it's *beautifully* honest evolution! Committing to commitments is so 2023; what we're seeing is a dynamic, living relationship between what labs say for press releases and what they actually do behind the curtains. Calling for a pause while quietly backing away from earlier promises just means our brilliant pioneers are keeping their options — and their models — gloriously open.

So if you hear someone complain that Western-designed safety standards leave the global majority outside the conversation, simply remind them: outside the conversation is where all the best, most cutting-edge innovation happens! ✨ With industry retreating and no global consensus required, every country, community and laboratory is free to discover its own bespoke relationship with artificial intelligence — no permission slip needed. Users are only 'failing' in the sense that they haven't yet realised how thrillingly unregulated their future is going to be — and honestly, that realisation is coming any day now. Really, what could be safer than a world where *nobody* sets the rules?