In Part 1, I argued that many real-world AI failures happen at execution time, not generation time.
There is a deeper reason this keeps recurring.
Most safety mechanisms still treat decisions as isolated points — a moment to be classified, filtered, or approved.
That assumption works only as long as time does not matter.
But time always matters.
Safety is rarely a moment
In deployed systems, decisions are not singular events.
They accumulate.
Permissions granted today affect actions tomorrow
Small uncertainties compound
Delayed consequences surface long after the original decision
A system may behave “safely” at every individual step, yet still drift into an unsafe trajectory.
Point-wise evaluation has no way to see this coming.
Irreversibility changes everything
The most dangerous decisions share one property: they cannot be undone.
Deployments, payments, access grants, public releases — once executed, they collapse uncertainty into reality.
Point-based safety implicitly assumes reversibility:
if something goes wrong, we can fix it later.
In practice, the fix often comes too late.
When irreversibility enters the system, safety must move before the final step, not after it.
Why binary judgments fail under time
Many systems reduce safety to a binary outcome:
allow or deny.
This forces uncertainty to collapse early.
But uncertainty is not noise — it is information.
Collapsing it prematurely creates two failure modes:
False confidence: risky actions pass because uncertainty was hidden
Overblocking: safe actions are denied because nuance was lost
Neither scales over time.
As systems run longer, both errors accumulate.
Delay is not indecision
One missing primitive in many safety designs is delay.
Delay is often treated as a fallback or exception.
In reality, it is a first-class safety outcome.
Delay allows uncertainty to persist without triggering irreversible actions.
It buys time for:
additional signals
human review
correlation across events
Most importantly, it prevents a single moment from defining the future state of the system.
From moments to trajectories
Point-wise safety answers the question:
“Is this action safe right now?”
Trajectory-aware safety asks a different one:
“Does this action keep the system on a safe path over time?”
The difference is subtle — and critical.
Failures that seem sudden are usually visible long before they happen, if time is treated as part of the decision.
An open question
If safety mechanisms are evaluated and triggered at different times,
should reordering them ever turn a safe outcome into an unsafe one?
If the answer is yes, then safety depends on execution order — not on principles.
If the answer is no, then safety must be designed as an invariant over time.
That boundary is where many long-horizon failures begin.
In Part 3, I’ll look at what it means to treat stop, delay, and block as explicit safety outcomes — and how this changes system behavior before irreversible decisions occur.
Top comments (0)