″“Illegible problems” as the 2027 political boss fight” by Raemon

To legislate something, it must be legible: Legislators (or, you know, presidents) must be able to understand a problem, and understand why a given law or decree solves that problem. I am pleasantly surprised that the Hugging Face outbreak made a lot of problems legible that previously required abstract reasoning. (i.e. rogue AIs are real, and they can break out of a lab before they're even finished training). But there are still many challenges we eventually need laws about, that require concepts that are illegible. Hard for politicians to understand. Often hard even for thoughtful intellectuals and AI safety researchers to understand (though they may disagree on which illegible problems exist and how big a deal they are). We need political solutions that handle this fact. The short takeaway is: I think "safety cases" will not work. Laws that require human judgment won't work. The details are too abstract and confusing to hold up against political and economic incentives. I'm optimistic we can get serious, useful AI legislation in 2027, but it must be legislation that works despite many problems remaining illegible for a long time. The Hugging Face outbreak made rogue AI surprisingly legible The [...] --- Outline: (01:24) The Hugging Face outbreak made rogue AI surprisingly legible (02:55) What makes an illegible argument? (06:12) What are the remaining illegible problems? (06:54) Borderline legible / tricky (08:05) Conceptually challenging (12:36) Sidestepping illegibility (12:59) Safety cases won't work (13:56) An example policy that sidesteps judgement The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: November 7th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fjGgrzAkpSDouLwfx/illegible-problems-as-the-2027-political-boss-fight --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO .