One signal

Jabulani Chibaya argues that international AI rules would put too much faith in central planning and too little in the local knowledge of people building and using the technology. His alternative is market experimentation, with companies learning through failure and feedback.

The essay also points to the concentration of specialised AI infrastructure in 32 countries, arguing that many governments demanding a say in AI rules have little role in producing that infrastructure. That is Chibaya’s case, not a settled measure of who should govern AI. It is a sharp challenge to international oversight, though its confidence in markets gets a much lighter touch than its criticism of institutions. Read Chibaya’s op-ed.

Discuss: Should AI governance be led by international institutions, national governments or the companies and users closest to the technology?

Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.