<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Opinion on Thomy Gölles</title><link>https://thomygoelles.com/tags/opinion/</link><description>Recent content in Opinion on Thomy Gölles</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2025 12:24:21 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://thomygoelles.com/tags/opinion/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>When “Responsible AI” Becomes a Wall Instead of a Guide</title><link>https://thomygoelles.com/who-defines-responsible-ai/</link><pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:26:38 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://thomygoelles.com/who-defines-responsible-ai/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="when-responsible-ai-becomes-a-wall-instead-of-a-guide"&gt;When “Responsible AI” Becomes a Wall Instead of a Guide&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The other day, I ran into this delightful message:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;“Your instructions may contain content that violates Microsoft’s responsible AI policy.”&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That’s it. No explanation. No hint of what part is problematic. Just a big red warning, suggesting that somewhere, somehow, I might be about to do something bad.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id="the-cynicism-of-corporate-responsibility"&gt;The Cynicism of Corporate Responsibility&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Now, I’m not against the idea of “responsible AI.” Quite the opposite. Of course, AI needs guardrails. But here’s where the cynicism kicks in: if a trillion-dollar, shareholder-value-driven company gets to define what “responsible” means—without transparency or clarity—then we’re left in a strange place.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>