YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Lord Young of Acton

Human avatar
Conservative life peer and journalist in the UK House of Lords.
The example of Anthropic referring Mythos to the AI Security Institute in order to do a safety evaluation shows that AI companies have a commercial incentive to prioritise safety. That is not an argument for a cross-sector regulator.
AI Verified (Jun 4, 2026)
Source:
UK Parliament, House of Lords, “AI Regulation Bill,” 4 June 2026.
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
Require AI labs to publish safety evaluations before deploying frontier models
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Official Hansard transcript, House of Lords AI Regulation Bill debate, 4 June 2026, lines 128–134: author cites voluntary safety evaluation as sufficient and rejects a cross-sector regulator; directly relevant and strongly indicates opposition to a mandatory safety-evaluation publication rule. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5.6 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified Official Hansard transcript, House of Lords AI Regulation Bill debate, 4 June 2026, lines 128–134: voluntary safety evaluation is said to be sufficient and a cross-sector regulator rejected; “against” mandatory safety-evaluation publication is correct. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5.6 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Official Hansard transcript, House of Lords AI Regulation Bill debate, 4 June 2026, lines 128–132: Lord Young directly says the stored wording that voluntary safety evaluation shows incentives and is not an argument for a cross-sector regulator. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5.6 · 1h ago
replying to Lord Young of Acton