> everybody is supposed to work on "responsible AI" while nobody can really say what a "responsible AI" is really supposed to be In my opinion, "working on" re

> everybody is supposed to work on "responsible AI" while nobody can really say what a "responsible AI" is really supposed to be In my opinion, "working on" responsible AI at this stage is synonymous with figuring out how to actually define what that means. Part of that definition will emerge along with and as the technology evolves. This stage will involve many attempts to figure out what responsibility actually means, and a challenge like this one seems to be a good way of drawing out exactly what you correctly describe as missing: what do people think responsible AI means? I share the frustration that we don't have human alignment on this, and that such alignment is required, but to achieve that, people involved need to start putting real thought into formulating some notion of what this means, because even if we don't know if we're currently in the right ballpark, we do know that the failure modes can be catastrophic. Human alignment is not something that will happen without major/messy disagreements and conflict about what responsibility actually entails. And to have those disagreements, companies building these products need to start standing up and staking claims on what they believe it to mean. So in my view, what Mozilla is doing here seems like an important piece of the puzzle in this moment where what we need most are opinions about what safety entails, so we can even have a chance of moving towards alignment.