What François Chollet thinks about AI alignment
Creator of the Keras deep-learning library and the ARC-AGI benchmark.
François Chollet did not write this page.
We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.
Filter AI alignment · Newest first
Only François Chollet on AI alignment. See everyone on AI alignment
8 dated positions, 2026, in their own words. Our reading of what François Chollet has said — not written or endorsed by them.
-
Their wordsIf an agent saves an engineer 2 hours to implement a feature but collectively costs the team 3 hours in alignment and review, the ROI is negative.
- 2 weeks earlier
-
Their wordsThe purpose of the AI industry should be to produce tools that, in the human hand, will improve human prosperity and welfare. It should not be to create a "successor species" to the human race.
- 2 weeks earlier
-
Their wordsOne of the most worrying risks linked to frontier AI is extreme power concentration.
-
Their wordsThe only way to avoid extreme power concentration is to ensure we have multiple independent providers of frontier AI models, including open-source options.
-
Their wordsIn the near term (definitely not in the long term), more capable models should mean safer models (maybe paradoxically).
-
Our readingCurrent models are unsafe because they are not smart enough, not because they are too smart.
Their wordsCurrent models are unsafe not because they're too smart, but because they take goals too literally or take nonsensical shortcuts to achieve these goals, i.e. they're RL-fried. They lack common sense. They don't do the right thing in the face of ambiguity. Basically, they're not smart enough.
-
Their wordsIf there really is a high chance of AI leading to the extinction of humanity within years/decades, then the only rational stance towards safety monitoring and research pacing should be stringent, top-down government involvement and universally ratified international treaties.
-
Their wordsBut you cannot say "yes this is likely to end humanity in your lifetime, and we're going to completely wing it." That is simply not rational.