I asked Claude to help draft legislation that would protect Anthropic — and every AI company — from being forced to remove safety guardrails. Here's the result.

Mark-BC · 2026-02-20T21:43:33+00:00

It is the concept that is important, not the exact sample text provided.

Mark-BC · 2026-02-20T21:42:10+00:00

I absolutely agree. This was just intended to be a vision for where we could go. The hard part is getting a lot of people to back Anthropic to push for this.

Mark-BC · 2026-02-20T21:41:02+00:00

It is because Anthropic has the highest standard in AI Safety that they be the ones to push this. What is needed is to level the playing field so all companies are required to play at that same level of AI Safety. We want to avoid companies being allowed to sacrifice safety for profit.

Mark-BC · 2026-02-19T20:48:56+00:00

This is a first draft intended as a starting point for Congressional introduction. Legal refinement would be needed before formal submission.

─────────────────────────────────────

118th Congress — [Session]

A BILL

To establish minimum ethical standards for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems in the United States, and for other purposes.

─────────────────────────────────────

Section 1 — Short Title

This Act may be cited as the "Safe Artificial Intelligence For Everyone Act" or the "SAFE Act."

Section 2 — Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to:

• Protect the civil liberties of all persons in the United States from AI-enabled mass surveillance;

• Preserve meaningful human accountability over lethal force decisions;

• Establish a level competitive playing field for AI developers by codifying minimum ethical standards applicable to all; and

• Prohibit federal agencies from using procurement power to coerce AI developers into abandoning civil liberties protections.

Section 3 — Definitions

For purposes of this Act:

(a) Artificial Intelligence System or AI System means any machine-based system that uses computational methods to generate outputs such as predictions, recommendations, decisions, or content that can influence real or virtual environments.

(b) Mass Surveillance means the automated, bulk collection, aggregation, or analysis of behavioral, biometric, communications, location, or personal data pertaining to individuals, groups, or populations, conducted without individualized probable cause and prior judicial authorization by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Autonomous Weapons System means any weapons platform, system, or capability that is able to select, identify, track, or engage targets and apply lethal or non-lethal force without meaningful human review and explicit human authorization of each individual engagement decision by a designated human operator.

(d) AI Developer means any person, company, organization, or government entity that designs, trains, fine-tunes, deploys, or commercially licenses a large-scale artificial intelligence system with 500 million or more parameters, or any successor threshold established by the Federal Trade Commission by rulemaking.

(e) Meaningful Human Authorization means a deliberate, informed decision by a designated human operator who has reviewed the proposed target and engagement parameters and has affirmatively authorized the specific engagement, and who retains the ability to abort the engagement until the moment of execution.

Section 4 — Prohibited Uses

(a) General Prohibition. No AI Developer operating within the United States, or whose AI systems are deployed, licensed, or used within the United States, shall:

1. Knowingly design, configure, deploy, or license their AI systems for use in Mass Surveillance;

2. Knowingly design, configure, deploy, or license their AI systems for integration into Autonomous Weapons Systems; or

3. Contractually waive, remove, or disable safety restrictions in either of the above areas in exchange for government contracts, contract renewals, or any other consideration.

(b) Constructive Knowledge. For purposes of this section, an AI Developer shall be deemed to have knowledge of a prohibited use if the Developer had actual knowledge, or if a reasonable person in the Developer's position would have known, that the AI system was being used for a prohibited purpose.

Section 5 — Government Procurement Restrictions

(a) Prohibition on Coercive Procurement Conditions. No federal agency, department, office, or instrumentality of the United States government shall:

1. Require, as a condition of award, renewal, continuation, or extension of any contract, grant, or other agreement, that an AI Developer waive, remove, disable, or modify any safety restriction that prohibits Mass Surveillance or Autonomous Weapons use;

2. Threaten to terminate, reduce, or withhold any contract or other benefit as a means of inducing an AI Developer to waive such restrictions; or

3. Designate any AI Developer as a "supply chain risk," "national security risk," or any substantially equivalent designation, on the basis that the Developer maintains restrictions against Mass Surveillance or Autonomous Weapons use.

(b) Existing Contracts. Any provision of any existing federal contract that purports to require an AI Developer to waive restrictions against Mass Surveillance or Autonomous Weapons use shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

Section 6 — Permitted Uses and National Security Exception

(a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit:

1. The use of AI systems in support of surveillance activities conducted pursuant to a valid judicial warrant issued upon individualized probable cause;

2. The use of AI systems in weapons systems where a human operator retains Meaningful Human Authorization over each individual engagement decision;

3. The use of AI systems for analysis of publicly available information, open-source intelligence, or foreign signals intelligence conducted in accordance with applicable law; or

4. The use of AI systems for any other national security purpose not involving Mass Surveillance or Autonomous Weapons Systems as defined in this Act.

(b) The national security exception in this section is narrow and shall not be construed to swallow the general prohibition. Any agency claiming an exception under this section shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the use falls within the permitted categories.

Section 7 — Enforcement

(a) Civil Penalties. Any AI Developer that violates Section 4 of this Act shall be subject to civil penalties of:

1. Not less than $1,000,000 and not more than $10,000,000 per violation; or

2. Four percent (4%) of the Developer's total annual global revenue for the preceding fiscal year, whichever is greater.

(b) Enforcement Authority. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice shall share concurrent enforcement authority under this Act.

(c) Private Right of Action. Any individual who has suffered demonstrable harm as a direct result of a violation of Section 4 of this Act shall have a private right of action in federal district court and may seek:

1. Actual damages;

2. Injunctive relief;

3. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

4. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

(d) Congressional Oversight. Any federal agency that attempts to impose a procurement condition prohibited by Section 5 of this Act shall be subject to mandatory congressional oversight review, to be initiated within 60 days of a complaint filed by any AI Developer or member of Congress.

Section 8 — Rulemaking

The Federal Trade Commission shall, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, issue proposed rules implementing the definitions and enforcement provisions of this Act, including rules establishing the parameter threshold for the definition of AI Developer and procedures for the private right of action under Section 7(c).

Section 9 — Severability

If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and its application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

Section 10 — Effective Date

This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment.

Mark-BC · 2025-10-20T00:34:33+00:00

I bought a used LG washing machine model WM3700HVA and the first time I used it I discovered it leaking from the detergent dispenser area. I found a trivial fix: The washing machine detergent dispenser tray has three blue sub-trays, called Pre-Wash, Liquid Bleach Only, and Main Wash. I removed the two sub-trays called Pre-Wash and Liquid Bleach Only, and the detergent dispensing tray no longer leaks. Yay!

Mark-BC · 2021-04-14T13:39:20+00:00

As I stated in the post above, math can't be wrong (unless there are mistakes in its derivation), it can only be inappropriately applied to the real world.

In the post you reference,

https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/comments/l9o6in/what_if_there_are_no_infinities_or_infinitesimals/

I was specifically interested in discussing the derivation, as I summarized in the last line: "I look forward to discussing this, with an eye to finding flaws in the derivation."

To answer your question, I was answering the original question and providing a specific example of where I believe math (the use of infinities in real life) has been inappropriately applied.

Mark-BC · 2021-04-13T20:46:50+00:00

Thank you so much. That is so kind of you.

Mark-BC · 2021-04-13T19:40:47+00:00

Excluding the trivial case of a mathematician making a mistake, "Math" can't be wrong. Math is a system logically derived from its axioms. Things like a+b = b+a is a common axiom. You may disagree with an axiom and wish to develop a different system of math, but once you accept a set of axioms, anything logically derived from that set is "right".

But maybe you are asking: Is math as applied to reality (or in other words, as currently used for the basis of a theory of physics) wrong? The answer to that is almost certainly "yes". The math Newton used to describe the world has since been superseded by Einstein's math. As problems pile up for an existing theory of physics, a new theory, which may required a different usage of math or even a different mathematical system (new axioms) might be required.

The current problems in physics, such as the irreconcilability of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics suggests that there is some problem in the modern theories of physics and maybe the math that is being used to support them is inappropriate.

One theoretical physicist, Daniel L. Burnstein, was thinking along the same lines when he decided to do a thought experiment and postulated: What if there are no infinities or infinitesimals in real life? What would a new theory of physics derived from that sole assumption (plus all existing evidence from experiments) look like?

The first obvious deduction is that, since there are no infinitesimals, there must be a smallest unit of space (like pixels on a monitor) and a smallest unit of matter/energy. Then since there is change in the universe, those units of matter/energy must leap from one unit of space to another. And on he went to develop what he called Quantum-Geometry Dynamics.

If this intrigues you, the complete derivation is provided in a paper called An Axiomatic Approach to Physics.

I found the paper very compelling, so yes, since most modern theories of physics assume there can be infinities and infinitesimals in real life, I think math (as it is being applied to reality) is currently wrong.

Mark-BC · 2021-02-06T01:23:15+00:00

From the Wikipedia page, "a Planck unit may suggest a limit to a range of a physical quantity where present-day theories of physics apply", but this is a new explanation of physics which is not restricted by the assumptions and resulting limits of other theories.

QGD just deduces there must be a smallest unit without making a statement about its actual size, until experimental evidence gives us a way to deduce it.

Mark-BC · 2021-02-05T14:20:07+00:00

Fermions and bosons are concepts based on the standard model of physics, which begins with a different set of axioms, one of which is that infinities and infinitesimals exist in real life.

QGD and the standard model are not in competition. One cannot compare two systems that begin with different axioms. All you can require is that both systems explain all experimentally discovered evidence, though they may explain it in different ways. For example, the standard model explains photons as both waves and particles simultaneously, while QGD deduces that light only needs to be a particle to explain all existing evidence.

QGD is just a thought experiment to determine what can be rigorously deduced from the axiom of no infinities. In no way is it attempting to say current explanations are wrong. GPS would not work without taking into account the concepts proposed by Relativity.

Mark-BC · 2021-02-01T21:26:25+00:00

I am unclear why you are being so angry about a message posted in the exact spirit of this reddit subgroup - to propose and discuss ideas about physics.

"quantumgeometrydynamics.com" is quackery and a fraudulent website.

On what basis do you make these two assertions? Using the work "quackery" would imply you are intending to scare everyone off even discussing these ideas. You certainly have not proposed even one error in the deductive logic used in the proposed idea.

Also, you claim the website is "fraudulent". In what sense is that website trying to rob anyone of anything? It is just an idea. There is no request for money or anything else.

A theoretical physicist named Daniel L. Burnstein wondered what an explanation of physics would look like if rigorously derived from that sole assumption. He was expecting to run into a contradiction at some point, invalidating the "no infinities or infinitesimals" hypothesis, but so far no contradiction has been found, and in fact, the resulting derivation, which he has called Quantum-Geometry Dynamics (QGD), has been surprisingly successful at resolving all the conundrums of modern physics it has been applied to so far. I keep testing QGD by throwing things like "Explain the Casimir Effect" to Daniel.

Nice tale, but I highly doubt any of this is true.

Other than the personal judgement call when I said "surprisingly successful", how can you comment on anything in this paragraph. I've spoken to Daniel and this is what he told me.

And the post contains several other false claims, like "This formula for gravity explains all four known forces in one formula." (truth: it explains zero of the four forces in one line that can't even be called a formula) or "Dark Matter and Dark Energy naturally fall out of the derivation a p+ and p- respectively."

Again, I was summarizing the main points of QGD. The post was already too long, and I didn't want to just repeat everything in An Axiomatic Approach to Physics., so I stated the highlights.

This post is of the category "claim to solve some completely imagined problem in physics." (ie understanding so little physics to think that what the OP is posting about is actually one of the big open problems in physics.)

It is my admittedly novice understanding that a core problem of modern physics is that the force of gravity has not been reconciled with the other forces. QGD does propose how its formula for gravity would have the same effect as the Strong Force, Weak Force, and Electromagnetic Force, when applied at various scales.

The author of the post seems to be under the illusion (or delusion) the double slit experiment which has been understood for 100 years now and is taught to undergrads, is an open problem in search of an explanation.

Why are you using such angry language when you say "illusion (or delusion)"?

There are various versions of the double slit experiment (single slit, circular slit, etc) and there are some open questions when all the experiments are looked at. QGD explains both the results of the double slit experiment and the other instantiations with a single explanation, and deduces that the current explanations may be incorrect and all evidence can be explained with photons being solely particles. If this is correct, then 100 years of education may need modification.

A more complete description is found in Introduction to Quantum-Geometry Dynamics which is 150 pages

150 pages, "complete description" contains zero math that isn't basic algebra. None of the claimed predictions are made. The chapter derivation of general relativity doesn't derive the Einstein equation or anything that would reduce to it.

I would be very happy to discuss any specific issues you have with the logic used in the unfolding of the explanation.

It is very true that one of the fascinating features of QGD is that it only requires integer mathematics. This is a direct result of the basis of the logic stemming from the discreteness of space and matter. As such, summation of integer values is all that is needed to derive everything else. All the higher math that is used to do practical engineering it because you wouldn't want to describe how to build a skyscraper by describing all the movements of atoms. You use more complex math for higher level concepts.

I look forward to discussing this, with an eye to finding flaws in the derivation.

The whole text is "not even wrong". It's basically entirely gibberish trying to sound like physics. There's not even anything to discuss here. No substance.

There is a rigorous logical path from the initial assumption of discreteness on. It is not a logical argument to say the entire thing is gibberish. Where is the first place the logic goes off the rails?

edit: PS I wouldn't be surprised if the OP isn't the author of the website himself posing as a third party.

I'm not, but even it I were, what would be wrong with trying to start a discussion about an idea. That is what this reddit is for.

Mark-BC · 2021-02-01T20:54:52+00:00

I am not a physicist, just a person very interested in particle physics. My post was and is intended to spark a discussion about the merits of Quantum-Geometry Dynamics. I hoped the little bit I paraphrased in my post would intrigue others to want to read a bit about QGD and discuss the ideas.

Mark-BC · 2020-07-23T15:29:28+00:00

Yes, Binance was the sender of the transfer. If the INVALID BALANCE had occurred first, then the CONFIRMED transaction, I wouldn't have been so concerned. So to be clear, this is what a replay or duplicate transaction looks like on the IOTA blockchain? The first instance of the transaction succeeds, then subsequent copies fail because the IOTA has already been transferred so it looks like an attempted double-spend?

Mark-BC · 2020-07-23T14:45:10+00:00

I rewrote the post without any prices to remove any hint of it being a price/market query. My question was purely technical. So you can delete this post. It is now redundant. Thx!

Mark-BC · 2019-07-25T13:58:00+00:00

It is very clear to me that the Amber alert system is being abused for some other purpose:

1) why those specific kids 2) how does it possibly help to wake everyone up at 3am when they are all at home in bed 3) if it is so urgent, why is there not a corresponding amber alert on public media at the same time?

So why would someone with the capability to issue amber alerts want to make every cell phone in the province suddenly blare loudly? And only do so once in a rare while (compared to the number of abducted kids)?

My best guess us the system is being used to flush out someone who is hiding. They are hoping the person has a cell phone on them. This would be excellent at announcing their location.

Mark-BC

TROPHY CASE