It was the end of July. I found myself at a startup gathering in Los Altos, California—one of those events where the future is spoken of with absolute confidence, as though it is already decided.

On stage, a panel of technology leaders discussed how AI agents are beginning to transform work. They spoke of efficiency, of scaling human effort, of the inevitability of intelligent systems embedding themselves into the fabric of everyday tasks.

When the discussion opened to questions, I asked one of the panelists how she dealt with the possibility of AI agents making mistakes. My intention was simple: to understand how practitioners in real deployments think about errors, accountability, and risk. Her initial response was casual—AI may make mistakes, but that is acceptable.

I pressed further. What about the kinds of mistakes that would get an employee fired—or even sued? How does one keep the model under control in those circumstances?

Her answer shocked me: AI would simply “get away with it,” the same way politicians make big mistakes and still get away with them. AI is no different.

The words stayed with me. This was not a casual voice—it came from someone leading a real-world deployment of AI agents in a regulated sector. For her, AI was to be treated as a privileged governing entity, immune from the consequences that humans inevitably face.

The thought unsettled me. It echoed the dystopian visions of films like The Matrix, where machines oversee human lives without being bound to human rules. Yet this was not fiction—it was a view already normalized by practitioners in Silicon Valley. The unsettling part was not that they accepted AI’s potential to harm, but that they also accepted its immunity from accountability.

And still—these are not unthinking people. They are highly intelligent. The question then arises: why would smart people willingly surrender agency to systems they know can harm, without insisting on safeguards?

Two possibilities occurred to me:

1. They feel helpless—unable to unlock the potential of AI while keeping it safe.
2. They operate with blind spots, unaware of the most basic requirements of commerce and responsibility.

---

I have worn many hats in my life: engineer, researcher, regulator, consumer. From these vantage points, I notice how specialists often fail to see beyond their immediate role. In the current wave of generative AI, many founders are very young, with backgrounds only in engineering. They often lack the context of business obligations—the implicit contracts, the hidden clauses, the responsibilities that govern trade and society.

It is as if they are signing a contract without ever reading its terms.

When such blind-spotted and helpless entrepreneurs take the wheel of technologies that shape our world, the danger becomes clear.

But there is also a way forward. Both helplessness and blind spots can be cured—through interdisciplinary exchange, through the willingness of engineers, regulators, researchers, and consumers to share knowledge with each other.

---

For this reason, I have taken on a mission: to facilitate cross-disciplinary dialogue, and to ensure that all stakeholders of society have a voice in the path toward AGI. The future must not be a story of humans surrendering to AI out of despair or ignorance.

We must choose another path—one of cooperation, awareness, and shared progress.

---

So, on this platform, high-level sharing among stakeholders will be facilitated: ideas, proposals, pain points, solutions, concerns, even draft policies—anything relevant to AI safety. Our language will remain simple, accessible to experts and laypeople alike, because this dialogue must be truly cross-disciplinary.

I invite you to join me in this journey. Let us become voices of hope—building toward the utopian benefits of AI, while countering its dystopian risks.