Frontier AI Fire Test Board
Songs and films can open attention. Accountability has to hold it. This board turns AI-risk cultural work into concrete public commitments: evaluations, incident reporting, red lines, enforcement readiness, and protected dissent.
Principles
No covert influence
Transparent public-interest advocacy. No fake grassroots, sockpuppets, or hidden targeting.
No personal targeting
Address public roles, institutions, and commitments — not private individuals or families.
No panic without action
Every warning should point to concrete next steps that reduce risk.
Status legend
Commitment status reflects adoption level. Verification status reflects available evidence quality. Both are updated as sources improve.
Europe — The Fire Test
Europe's AI Act is historic. The fire test is whether enforcement, staffing, incident reporting, independent evaluation, and whistleblower protection become real before frontier systems outrun paper safeguards.
China — 中国先行 / China Leads
China is a frontier AI builder and an active governance actor. The strongest safety frame is leadership through responsibility: 安全可控, 风险评估, 负责任的人工智能, 智能向善, and clear red lines.
Global frontier labs
Every frontier lab should prove that capability is bounded by evaluation, incident reporting, rollback policy, and independent scrutiny.
How to help
If you are a regulator or policymaker
- Publish enforcement readiness and staffing status.
- Create incident and near-miss reporting channels.
- Protect AI safety whistleblowers.
- Define public red lines for frontier deployments.
If you are an engineer, researcher, or operator
- Ask what would trigger pause or rollback.
- Document unresolved safety concerns.
- Push for independent evaluation access.
- Do not let "we will monitor after launch" replace pre-launch safety evidence.
Corrections welcome
This is a prototype (v0.2). The board should become more useful through correction, sources, and expert review. The goal is not blame; the goal is verifiable commitments that keep frontier AI compatible with human and possible future AI flourishing.
Sources and context
Source set includes EU AI Act implementation materials, European AI Office / AI Act timeline resources, reporting on national implementation gaps, Chinese AI governance frameworks (TC260, CAC), OECD incident reporting frameworks, Frontier Model Forum publications, AI safety research trackers, and public discussions of frontier AI risk. This prototype intentionally avoids scoring countries as "good" or "bad"; it tracks concrete commitments and verification status.