We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by William Saunders
Former OpenAI research engineer
That the company will facilitate a verifiably anonymous process for current and former employees to raise risk-related concerns to the company’s board, to regulators, and to an appropriate independent organization with relevant expertise; Companies have a legitimate interest to protect confidential information, but this should not prevent discussion of risk related concerns. Employees with risk-related concerns might have reasons to not trust the governance structure of the company (otherwise, they could raise the issue through normal channels). In general, corporate leadership has an incentive to minimize or silence problems, to avoid hurting the company’s reputation. Concerns should be anonymous so that the employee can be protected from retaliation. The concerns should also be simultaneously shared with third parties outside of the company, so that they can be evaluated by someone without a conflict of interest. This should include all appropriate regulators. In case there are no regulators, or the regulators don’t have appropriate expertise, an independent third party organization should be found to monitor the concerns. This organization should not be incentivized by the company to minimize or silence problems, but they should also have an obligation to protect confidential information shared with them. Ideally, the independent organization should have enough credibility to be able to state things like “a number of confidential concerns have been shared with us recently, we can’t share the details but we think that the organization is not behaving responsibly with regards to issue X”.AI Verified source (2024)
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly supports whistleblower-style protections for people raising AI risk concerns: it calls for a verifiably anonymous reporting process, sharing concerns with regulators/independent bodies, and says anonymity is needed so employees are protected from retaliation. That directly implies support for granting whistleblower protections to AI safety researchers.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 17d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly supports protections for employees raising AI-risk concerns: it says concerns should be "anonymous so that the employee can be protected from retaliation" and shared with regulators or an independent body.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 17d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The quote is authentic. William Saunders’s Substack post, “My Perspective On "A Right to Warn about Advanced Artificial Intelligence,"” published on June 4, 2024, contains the quoted Principle 2 sentence and the following explanatory paragraphs verbatim, and the page attributes the post to William Saunders. ([williamrsaunders.substack.com](https://williamrsaunders.substack.com/p/my-perspective-on-a-right-to-warn))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
replying to William Saunders