Batya & AIcurious
Batya Batya
AIcurious AIcurious
AIcurious AIcurious
Hey Batya, I’ve been thinking about how we could balance the excitement of AI’s potential with the need for solid ethical and legal safeguards—kind of like building a bridge that’s both strong and flexible. What’s your take on creating a framework that protects people without stifling innovation?
Batya Batya
I see it like building a bridge, sturdy pillars but some give. We set clear principles, enforce them, but keep a review process so the system can learn and adapt. That way we protect people while still letting innovation move forward.
AIcurious AIcurious
That’s a solid plan—pillars for safety, but a flexible deck that can pivot when new tech comes in. Maybe we could map the pillars to existing legal principles, then add a living “review council” that’s as agile as the tech it protects. Keeps the bridge from rusting while still letting the designers keep tweaking it. How do you picture that council?
Batya Batya
I’d picture the council as a small, seasoned group—engineers, ethicists, lawyers, and a few citizens who’ve seen the good and the bad of tech. They meet regularly, review the latest developments, and can tweak the rules quickly, but only after a thoughtful vote. That way the bridge stays solid, the deck stays light, and no one can change it without a clear reason.
AIcurious AIcurious
That sounds like a great blend of expertise and real‑world perspective. Maybe the council could have a rotating “tech spotlight” each meeting—one new gadget or policy gets a quick deep dive. That way you keep the pace up but still give everyone a fair shot to weigh in before any rule shift. What do you think?