Experts warn that the AI safety sector is overinvesting in public actions at the expense of discreet, high-impact institutional work.
A significant portion of the work influencing artificial intelligence governance takes place far from the spotlight, in ministerial offices and international forums. While open letters, op-eds, and public statements dominate the public debate, the technical work of civil servants and consultants within government agencies has a decisive practical effect on policymaking. This internal institutional work complements the legislative branch by filling technical and operational gaps that laws alone cannot cover.
The community dedicated to AI safety, however, has disproportionately directed its efforts toward the visible side of regulation. There is a structural bias that values intellectual production and public actions, resulting in underinvestment in the so-called "invisible routes" of influence. Consequently, the sector may be missing strategic opportunities for real impact by focusing on actions with immediate reach, which do not always reach the decision-makers who actually draft regulations.
The transition from technical research to political action requires an understanding that public work does not necessarily need to be visible to be effective. Direct negotiation with national bureaucracies and participation in international committees, such as those of the OECD and the UN, rely on a discreet game of influence. This mode of action, although initially unfamiliar to professionals with a technical profile, has proven fundamental to advancing regulatory frameworks in different countries.
The discrepancy between theoretical regulation and practical execution also explains the difficulties in replicating activism models from one country to another. Initiatives that work in certain political realities may not have the same effect in different institutional contexts, where policymaking occurs primarily through the executive branch. Direct engagement in these bureaucratic spaces is highlighted as an indispensable pathway to ensuring that safety concerns are effectively incorporated into global legislation.
The sector disproportionately focuses on visible public actions like open letters and op-eds, underinvesting in discreet institutional work. This causes them to miss strategic opportunities to influence the decision-makers who actually draft regulations.
It is the technical work of civil servants and consultants within government agencies and international forums, such as the OECD and the UN. This direct negotiation with bureaucracies fills operational gaps that laws alone cannot cover.
Policymaking occurs differently depending on the institutional context. In many countries, regulation is driven primarily by the executive branch, meaning direct engagement in bureaucratic spaces is required rather than public activism.