Editorial illustration for Secret meeting sees 94% approve even least‑popular AI resistance stance
AI Resistance Policy: 94% Agree on Landmark Strategy
Secret meeting sees 94% approve even least‑popular AI resistance stance
Behind closed doors, 94% of attendees approved the least popular stance on AI resistance. That number alone should stop you cold. The dissenters?
They didn’t matter. The partisanship that fractures public debate, Grok vs. Anthropic, “based” vs.
“woke”, evaporated the moment the stakes became clear. As one participant put it, if there’s poison in the water, nobody asks your party affiliation. They just want it out.
Nearly a decade ago, the Asilomar AI Principles drew a who’s who of tech royalty: Altman, Musk, Hawking. Optimism reigned. This secret meeting?
It was the hangover. The luxury of debating labels is dead. The only question left is whether we get this right.
(The least popular position in the Declaration still got approved by 94% of attendees.) "I think about it like, if there's knowledge that there's poison in the water supply, or that drugs are flooding schools -- anything like that, in general -- most people are going to be against it and it isn't partisan," he said. AI was slightly trickier in that people's general opinion about specific AI models divided along party lines -- Grok was the "based" AI and Anthropic was the "woke" AI -- but to Allen, the distinction was meaningless. "Like, what does 'based' and 'woke' even mean at this point?" "'We will not have the luxury of debating all of those other issues if we don't get this thing right.
So let's get this thing right.'" Nearly a decade ago, FLI had laid out a more optimistic set of principles for AI research -- 23 principles, to be exact, written during the 2017 Asilomar Conference for Beneficial AI, which drew over 100 tech luminaries of the day. Signatories and endorsers of the Asilomar AI Principles included AI leaders like Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Demis Hannabis; luminaries like Stephen Hawking and Ray Kurzweil, and representatives from major companies like Google, Intel and Apple.
A 94% consensus on an “unpopular” stance isn’t a coincidence. It’s a signal. The room understood what Allen spelled out: the luxury of debating tribal labels evaporates when the water is poisoned.
That near-unanimous vote wasn’t about agreeing on every detail, it was about recognizing that the cost of getting this wrong eclipses all other fights. The Asilomar principles from a decade ago were a lighthouse. This secret meeting was a warning flare.
The question now isn’t whether to resist or embrace AI. It’s whether we have the spine to act before the debate itself becomes irrelevant.
Related Reading
Research & Benchmarks Google's FACTS benchmark shows 70% factuality ceiling across four tests
Research & Benchmarks Databricks finds multi-step agents beat single-turn RAG by 21% to 38% on STaRK
Research & Benchmarks Nvidia's DLSS 4.5 beta adds 6x Multi Frame Generation for RTX 50 GPUs
From Archives AI data centers move to Arctic edge, boosting Nordic rural economies
From Archives Microsoft's OPCD cuts system prompts while preserving AI performance
Common Questions Answered
What was the key outcome of the secret AI policy meeting in New Orleans?
The meeting resulted in a draft Declaration with ten potential AI resistance stances, where even the least popular position received 94% approval from attendees. This near-unanimous support demonstrated remarkable consensus across diverse groups including church leaders, conservative scholars, labor union representatives, and progressive operatives.
How did the meeting's participants view political divisions around AI technologies?
Participants noted that AI opinions often divided along partisan lines, with some AI models like Grok perceived as 'based' and others like Anthropic seen as 'woke'. Despite these potential divisions, the meeting showed a strong unified approach to addressing potential AI risks.
Why was the meeting's venue and invitation process described as 'secret'?
The meeting was held at a New Orleans Marriott with an intentionally opaque invitation process, where attendees only discovered who else was present upon entering the room. This surprise element was believed to potentially help break down typical political barriers and facilitate more open dialogue.
Further Reading
- How safe is the future of dual-use defense- opinion — Jerusalem Post
- 2025 Programming - NSF AI Institute for Societal Decision Making — Carnegie Mellon University
- Why 95% of Corporate AI Projects Fail: Lessons from MIT's 2025 Study — Complex Discovery
- Insights from the 2025 Space+AI Summit - Booz Allen — Booz Allen Hamilton
