Ulysses wants to hear the song of the sirens. He also knows that anyone who hears it throws himself into the water and dies.
So he does something strange. He asks his crew to tie him to the mast, and orders them in advance not to untie him, whatever he says afterwards. He knows he will beg. He also knows that the man who begs will not be quite the same man who gives the order now.
This week, two AI leaders went to the UN to ask to be regulated. The question is worth asking: is it the same gesture?
What asking for a constraint presupposes
Ulysses' gesture only makes sense if three things are true at the same time.
He wants something now that he will no longer want later. That is what makes the constraint necessary: he knows his will is going to change.
He does not trust himself. This is the central admission, and it is rare. Most of the time, we believe that our future will will resemble today's.
He hands power to others. The sailors have their orders, and those orders take precedence over what he will say. Without that, the commitment is worth nothing.
This third point is the only one that really matters. A commitment you can undo yourself is not a commitment. It is an intention.
The test
Let us apply it to what happened this week.
The first two conditions appear to be met. These leaders say they will want to move fast, and that they know speed is dangerous. They describe exactly Ulysses' trap: I am going to want to untie myself.
The third, no. They are asking someone to tie them up, but no one has yet taken hold of the rope. There is today no authority capable of telling one of these laboratories: this model will not be released.
As long as that is the case, we are looking at a man who explains very well why he ought to be tied up, on a boat where no one has a rope.
All of this can be read another way: calling for rules you know are not coming costs nothing and buys credibility. It is a legitimate suspicion, and it is unverifiable — you cannot open people's heads. But there is a way to settle it without knowing anyone's intentions: look at whether the commitment is costly. Accepting outside evaluators with full access to your systems costs something. Speaking at the UN does not. So we can judge acts without judging souls, and that is more honest.
The problem even Ulysses did not have
There is a difference, and it is a big one.
Ulysses was alone on his boat. If he tied himself up, the matter was settled.
Here, there are several boats. A shipowner who ties himself up while the others carry on protects no one: he loses the race and the sirens sing anyway. That is why individual calls for caution never work in a competitive industry — and it is exactly why these leaders are asking for a rule that applies to everyone.
Their request is therefore coherent. It only becomes effective if someone from outside imposes it.
What this tells us about ourselves
There is nothing exotic about this gesture. We do it all the time.
You hand your keys to a friend before you start drinking. You put the alarm clock at the other end of the room. You put money in an account you can't touch. You sign up for a course so that you have to turn up.
Each time, you arrange in advance a world in which you will have less freedom, because you know that the freedom of the moment would make you do something stupid.
It is probably the most adult thing you can do: to acknowledge that you will be weaker later, and to arrange things now so that it doesn't matter.
What's missing, in one sentence
Ulysses did not tie himself up.
He couldn't: a knot you tie yourself comes undone by yourself. He needed hands that were not his own, and orders he could not revoke.
Everything that played out this week comes down to that sentence. The speech was the right one. What's missing is the sailors.