Comment by OpenAI

We are likely to eventually need something like an IAEA for superintelligence efforts; any effort above a certain capability (or resources like compute) threshold will need to be subject to an international authority that can inspect systems, require audits, test for compliance with safety standards, place restrictions on degrees of deployment and levels of security, etc. But the governance of the most powerful systems, as well as decisions regarding their deployment, must have strong public oversight. We believe people around the world should democratically decide on the bounds and defaults for AI systems. AI Verified source (2023)
Like Share on X 6mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Verified Source URL (openai.com 'Governance of superintelligence', May 22, 2023, by Altman/Brockman/Sutskever) returns 403 to WebFetch but Google search confirms the verbatim text of both paragraphs in the quote ('IAEA for superintelligence efforts', 'above a certain capability (or resources like compute) threshold', 'strong public oversight', 'democratically decide on the bounds and defaults for AI systems'). Author attribution to OpenAI as the institutional source is correct. Year 2023 matches the publication date and reflects OpenAI's foundational governance position — consistent with their continued public stance through 2025-2026. Vote 'against' on statement #379 ('Ban superintelligence development until safety consensus is reached') is correctly aligned: the OpenAI post explicitly advocates oversight, audits, and democratic governance to enable continued development, not a ban. Verified. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 5d ago
replying to OpenAI