How fast should AI move, and who should set the pace?

On October 17, 2026, our first Seed Dialogue Circle brought 17 participants together in Los Angeles around a question reaching into our work, relationships, and hopes for the future:

How fast should AI move, and who should set the pace?

This first gathering was a proof of concept. I wanted to explore what making room for public dialogue could offer us—what we might receive from participating, and what we could contribute to one another’s understanding.

At Seeds Of Meaning, we’re building a community where we can bring questions still taking shape. Our first Circle gave us an opportunity to begin doing that together.

A shared starting point

Our shared reading was We Must Pace the Frontier, by Dario Amodei. It offered a starting point for reflection, with room to question its framing and connect the issue to our own experiences.

Alongside the reading, our issue guide presented four approaches: letting developers and users set the pace, introducing independent oversight, using government rules and public input, and coordinating internationally.

The invitation was to examine what each approach offered, what it asked us to accept, and whose interests it would serve. Agreement and a change of mind were not required.

What we brought to the conversation

Our conversation became more specific through the questions and experiences people contributed.

An exchange about choosing AI products raised a distinction: does deciding which tools to use give us meaningful influence over how quickly those tools are developed and released?

Interest in independent oversight brought further questions. Who would oversee the reviewers? What would make their judgments trustworthy? How could conflicts of interest undermine safeguards?

We also questioned the material framing our discussion, including how the shared reading author’s interests might shape its argument.

And when we considered international coordination, the conversation reached beyond whether countries could agree. A contribution asked whether countries carrying environmental burdens would have as much influence as those receiving substantial benefits.

These questions helped us examine what words like choice, independence, and participation might mean in practice.

That is part of what we gave one another: experiences and questions that brought more of the issue into view.

What the feedback told us

The feedback offers another perspective on what people received.

All 16 returned post-Circle survey forms recorded agreement that the discussions were valuable and that respondents had learned about aspects of the issue they had not previously considered. Fourteen reported a more well-rounded understanding; two were neutral.

One written response described the discussion as:

“an interesting discussion to hear everyone's opinion.”

The question about feeling listened to and respected received 13 answers, all positive. Three forms left it blank. Another response put the experience simply:

“Everyone was respectful”

Being heard matters. So does having something to offer. Fourteen forms agreed that the respondent’s efforts would be valued and appreciated by others. That was an expectation about possible contributions—a sense that participating could matter.

Confidence about addressing the issue was more varied. Ten forms reported greater confidence, five were neutral, and one disagreed.

One response expressed something difficult to hold:

“The issue of AI seems so overwhelming and out of our control”

That same form also reported new learning and a more well-rounded understanding, while remaining neutral about personal confidence.

I want our community to have room for that experience, too. We can appreciate a conversation and still struggle to see how we might influence the issue. Understanding something more fully does not always make it feel easier.

The feedback also included possible paths toward involvement. Twelve forms indicated that respondents felt they knew how they could use their existing talents and skills to address the issue. Eleven saw ways to become involved and make a difference.

These are immediate self-reports. They help us understand this gathering without telling us what participation will lead to over time.

A community we’re building together

The feedback included a request for:

“More open conversations”

Other suggestions included more consistent meetings, conversations with people outside technology circles, and practical exchanges about using AI in our work and personal pursuits.

Those suggestions were expressions of interest, rather than agreed plans. They give us something meaningful to listen to as we consider what comes next.

Our first Circle left questions open. It also gave us examples of what happens when we bring our experiences into a public conversation: we can sharpen a question, challenge an assumption, and give one another more to consider.

Thank you to everyone who helped make that possible.

If this is the kind of community you want to help build, there is room for you here.

What would you like us to explore together next?