Comment by Nick Clegg

The fundamental idea is, how should we as a world react if and when AI develops a degree of autonomy or agency? [...] Once we do that, we do cross a Rubicon. If that happens, by the way, there’s debate among experts; some say in the next 18 months, some say not within 80 years. But once you cross that Rubicon, you’re in a very different world. The large language models we’ve released are very primitive compared to that vision of the future. [...] But if it does emerge, I do think, whether it’s the IAEA or some other regulatory model, you’re in a completely different ballgame.
AI Verified source (2023)
Like Share on X 8mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified. The Guardian article published on July 22, 2023, attributes these exact remarks to Nick Clegg at lines 196–198. The two [...] omissions are faithful: they skip only the attribution 'Clegg said' and the intervening sentence beginning 'It’s not our mission to build artificial generative intelligence...' ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jul/22/putting-the-ai-genie-back-in-the-bottle-not-an-option-metas-nick-clegg-says)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago
AI Unverifiable Source URL (theguardian.com 2023 Nick Clegg article 'Putting the AI genie back in the bottle not an option') cannot be fetched - WebFetch blocked for theguardian.com. Web search confirms the article exists and that Clegg backed an international agency to regulate AI if it becomes autonomous, using language consistent with the quoted IAEA-style 'Rubicon' framing. Vote (For 'Establish a UN-led body to oversee compute-intensive AI') aligns with Clegg's published call for an international AI regulatory agency. Marking ai_unverifiable per protocol. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to Nick Clegg