Raw LLM Responses
Inspect the exact model output for any coded comment.
Look up by comment ID
Random samples — click to inspect
in
What feels impossible today often becomes normal surprisingly fast in technology…
7463292463814…
in
Anthropic engineers shipping 8x more code proves that software development is sh…
7468667584205…
in
One big question that stopped me while learning AI/LLMs: Till now, I understood …
7463627951033…
in
This is a sharp observation about workflow fatigue as AI tools proliferate. The …
7466896188198…
in
Summarising historical information based on meeting material and minutes and the…
7467481220487…
in
Honest take: most AI video tools generate decent first drafts, but they fall apa…
7464737005411…
in
Pascal BORNET part of this awareness that we champion, is understanding that AI …
7465065005126…
in
ATTENTION: @Demis Hassabis & the Google DeepMind Safety Architecture Team Consid…
7465483074831…
Comment
Matthew Kilkenny Thank you Matthew. Roman Yampolski says AI safety is unsolvable even with decades of research and billions invested. He’s right about the angle—but the angle is wrong. Post-hoc governance of systems already capable of acting becomes intractable under capability scaling. That’s the wall he’s hitting. The impossibility pattern inverts the problem: authority-bearing execution becomes structurally impossible unless admissibility is deterministically certified at commitment. You don’t control what’s already capable. You structure the boundary so capacity doesn’t exist until conditions verify. The Vatican faces the same challenge. Unless they’re examining the execution boundary as the control mechanism itself, they’ll hit Yampolski’s wall too. Most governance assumes managing increasingly capable systems through oversight and accountability. Those matter downstream. But execution-boundary governance answers what appears unsolvable everywhere else—not how to control what’s already capable, but how to structure systems so effect-bearing execution is impossible unless valid admissibility exists at commitment.
LinkedIn
AI Safety & Risk
Influencing AI safety at the execution boundary…
2026-05-27T03:1…
Coding Result
| Dimension | Value |
|---|---|
| Primary value | safety |
| Secondary value | accountability |
| Alignment target | humanity |
| Stance | skeptical |
| Emotion | mixed |
| Value justification | The speaker emphasizes the importance of AI safety and highlights the limitations of post-hoc governance, suggesting that safety is a primary concern. |
| Target justification | The speaker discusses the challenges of AI governance in a general sense, implying that the target of alignment is humanity as a whole, rather than a specific group or organization. |
| Coded at | 2026-06-11T08:20:28Z |
Raw LLM Response
```
{
"value_primary": "safety",
"value_secondary": "accountability",
"target": "humanity",
"stance": "skeptical",
"emotion": "mixed",
"value_justification": "The speaker emphasizes the importance of AI safety and highlights the limitations of post-hoc governance, suggesting that safety is a primary concern.",
"target_justification": "The speaker discusses the challenges of AI governance in a general sense, implying that the target of alignment is humanity as a whole, rather than a specific group or organization."
}
```