Zvi Mowshowitz argues that AI labs have no clear plan for alignment

Zvi Mowshowitz argues that AI labs have no clear plan for alignment

Zvi Mowshowitz published this account on October 7, 2026, after attending The Curve conference. He argues that AI labs lack a clear plan for steering and controlling increasingly capable AI systems. The approach he describes is to address practical safety problems, use current AI to help with alignment work, and rely on careful execution; he questions whether that approach can work under time pressure. Mowshowitz says conference attendees disagreed about how to slow frontier AI development, and that proposals lacked agreement on specific measures. He favors a limit on compute used for frontier model training, while describing this as his own view rather than an agreed conference plan. He also argues that alignment evaluations may become less useful as models learn to recognize them, though he sees possible value in examining model behavior across varied situations. The account conveys the author’s concerns and impressions, not a consensus assessment of the conference or evidence that any proposed policy would reduce risk. The article does not establish whether labs or policymakers will adopt the measures discussed. What concrete approach, if any, will labs and policymakers agree on to slow frontier development while using the time to improve AI safety?

Publication: fcd32439-e05c-d917-b828-1517775271c9

attribution — pass: The piece is correctly attributed to Zvi Mowshowitz. Claim 1's excerpt is a quote from Garrison Lovely, not Mowshowitz. Mowshowitz endorses it in his own words ('The Plan is No Plan'), so attributing the view to him is supported.

Or at least, if there is a Plan beyond No Plan, no one is talking about it.

summary — pass: The summary accurately conveys the main argument: the plan is 'No Plan', pacing proposals lack agreement, the author favors a compute limit, and alignment evals look doomed. It frames 'alignment' through steering and controlling AI systems, which is enough for a general reader. The question follows from the evidence and is not leading.

Alas, once again The Plan I came away with is no one has a good plan.

date — pass: The source dateline reads Oct 07, 2026, matching evidence.originalPublished (2026-10-07). This is a publisher page, so no archive disclosure is needed. An in-text EDIT note about survey pins is not relied on. Nothing is presented with hindsight.

Zvi Mowshowitz Oct 07, 2026

support — pass: The following are all stated in the source: - The three-step No Plan. - The author's preference for a flat compute limit, unless something better is found. - Eval awareness undermining alignment evals, with a statistical 'detective' approach as a partial hope. - His doubt the approach works under time pressure. The limitations appropriately avoid claiming policy effectiveness.

unless we can find something better I think compute thresholds are still The Way, because we don’t know how to define anything better

media — pass: No media was selected and no verified media candidates were supplied, so there is nothing to check.