Josephine Wolff

And I think that we are much more likely to be able to put in place those restrictions with more international cooperation.

Right.

I think the U.S.

on its own is never going to say we shouldn't be pursuing AI to develop bioweapons because if they think China is pursuing that, then they're never going to want to give up their access to it.

So I think it opens the door to being able to say, look, this particular capability seems bad for all of us.

Let's take it off the table together.

And that way, you know, worry less about, oh, are you going to get there first?

For the most part right now, we don't.

I think the hope for an insurance industry would be that it would incentivize or require companies that are developing software to use state-of-the-art tools for security testing, right?

In the same way that none of us would have smoke detectors in our homes if our insurers didn't require us to.

maybe none of us would spend any money securing our code, but if our insurance says you've got to do this or we're not going to cover certain types of losses, then perhaps we'll be willing to.

And I do think that one of the other things that I find sort of hopeful about tools like Nithos is that they could provide insurers with a clearer roadmap than they've had before of what is it you should actually require.

of your policyholders to do in terms of security?

Is there, you know, a really solid approach that could be just a condition of the coverage?

I think it's a reason to, you know, be advocating for other models of artificial intelligence.

It's a reason to be thinking about the open weight models.

It's a reason to be thinking about sort of, are there alternatives to a world in which there's a very, very small handful of companies that hold all the cards?

But if you can say like, look, here's a tool, you have to run it, you have to patch everything it finds, that's actually a much more concrete solution.

piece of guidance.

Now, maybe it won't be perfect.