What's new in AI governance, safety, jobs and society

The first is the danger that AI becomes so capable that humans lose control of it. This is the existential-risk scenario that dominates Silicon Valley’s safety debate. The ultimate threat is not China, the US or any particular lab. Rather, it is an a...

It is an argument for treating incident discovery and independent review as part of the safety system itself. If advanced agents can generate vast volumes of activity quickly, companies need clear thresholds for what gets escalated, investigated, ind...

Frontier AI companies should grant embedded evaluators access equivalent to that of their own highly privileged employees for the purposes of their evaluations, and with exceptions to protect sensitive data belonging to the company’s customers and ot...

It seems likely that the answer looks more like setting standards for other businesses while ensuring courts and attorneys general hold AI businesses liable for foreseeable uses of their technology—including enforcing existing laws about hacking and ...

This is a systemic problem that we cannot leave to the good graces of private companies. When thinking about regulations, we should focus centrally on how much autonomy we give these systems. A chatbot that answers a question poses one set of risks. ...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving recruitment from a largely human-administered process toward a socio-technical decision system in which algorithms source, rank, screen, assess, and recommend candidates. [...] It advances a risk-calibrated mode...

The act will employ the precautionary principle to prohibit the introduction of AI tools into high-risk settings, such as education, health care or the delivery of public services, unless there is clear evidence that they will not cause harm. Where h...

As the frontier models become more capable, these risks have come more sharply into focus. Models being developed will allow hacking on a level we never thought possible. And they will soon be in the hands of adversaries who see the world very differ...

All of this seems great to me, and there are some things that I'm especially happy to see. Specifically, point number two: “The idea of model welfare is wrong. AIs should not have rights or legal personhood.”

Today, the companies are being built elsewhere. Last year the United States produced 59 notable AI models and China produced 35. France and the United Kingdom produced one each. Along the rest of the AI value chain, the picture is the same: the Unite...

National Dividend Funds: Public ownership stakes in AI infrastructure and companies, distributing the resulting profits as direct cash payments to all citizens. [...] Because the fund's payouts grow with the value of its holdings, the mechanism scale...

The mainstream take is that an AI lab should assess risk before deploying a new model externally. But I think risk assessment should come way earlier in the model lifecycle. Compare the situation with dangerous bio. We wouldn't find it acceptable for...

We should take decisive action now so that we can slow down, as the CEOs have recently acknowledged, slow down the pace of development in order to protect the American people and ensure that AI is proceeding safely.

The only way to ultimately control AI on a worldwide scale in coming years will be for the two superpowers to create some kind of framework modeled after how we've safely governed nuclear weapons for decades.

AI isn’t going away. Barring unprecedented global government coordination, it isn’t even slowing down. The only real decision is whether to centralize power, or disperse it. Do you fear the technology? Or a small number of people controlling the te...