What experts and citizens think about AI governance, safety, jobs and society

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...

You’ll see industry oppose outside auditors and the main reason is they would mandate something that can’t be done [today] in a robust and uniform manner.

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...

the bad news: Dario estimates that in 6 months AI will have the ability to take over the internet the worse news: Anthropic's current commitment to stopping this is... putting independent evaluators in desks in their office have a great day

They really become part of the company, which makes it difficult to criticize it because the staffers become almost your friends.

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 ...

It’s a very thorny area. It’s uncharted territory. There’s a good argument to be made on either side.

I just don’t think the developer is in a position to know exactly how their product is being used.

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. ...

Existing responsible AI governance frameworks mandate human oversight. Yet they share a critical assumption: that competent human overseers remain present and capable of exercising meaningful oversight and control over AI decisions. Accountability mu...

A lot of tools can tell you an AI agent is behaving strangely. Very few can act on that at the network layer, without waiting on a human to approve a ticket. That’s the piece we’re closing.

Proposals under consideration include requiring independent third parties to write safety plans for frontier AI companies, as well as requiring companies to develop an emergency shutoff, or “kill switch,” for frontier models.

If you’re relying on a ‘kill switch’ to stop an AI agent, you’ve already made a fundamental mistake. A properly governed agent is simply never handed the task, so there is nothing to kill.

Those who have created these technologies are now increasingly warning that AI risks developing darker capacities – perhaps even to take life. In this regard, if I may say so, there seems urgency in adequately considering the existential dangers of s...

Much has been said about whether AI poses an ultimate existential threat to humanity. The more immediate existential challenge may be whether technologies that simulate relationships weaken our capacity for the relationships that foster our own human...

I’m not a doomer. This talk about human extinction is over the top. [...] The idea that these swarms of AI agents might jump the fence and take over a banking system or take over a water system or, God forbid, take over a hospital.

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...

As with any technology, the need for regulation depends on how it is deployed, the nature of harm that may be caused, and whether existing measures are effective in addressing those harms. Where existing measures are assessed to be inadequate and a s...

The extensive disclosure, auditing, and human-review mandates could slow hiring processes, increase administrative costs, and discourage employers—especially smaller ones—from using tools that streamline workforce management.

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...

Artificial intelligence, digital forensics, and geospatial intelligence are transforming how we anticipate threats and conduct investigations.

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...

The question that the noble Lord posed was: do we therefore go for a moratorium? That would be highly desirable, but I do not think that it will be possible in the short term.

The Technology Secretary rejected calls to pause the development of artificial intelligence, describing such a move as “a double betrayal” of British talent and British interests.

And if we want these SSAs to obey law, we will have to grant them the benefits of the law as well as its burdens: property, standing, procedure. That would not make them human, but would help make them more governable.

This article does not argue that AI should be granted personhood or human rights. Also, it does not equate AI with humans. What I address here is a design issue: if AI actually functions within society, organizations, and business operations, its act...

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...

Europe should prioritize “code over concrete.”

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...

Rather than doing something immediately, it would be better first to have academic research and examination, and then apply the scholarly findings to reality. It is an issue that, in the later legislative process, must win public consensus and fully ...

The reason universal basic income doesn’t work—well, I guess you have to define what you think success looks like. There have been many studies and many experimentations on universal basic income, so it’s not a new idea. It’s an idea that’s been test...

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.

I’m confident that a cooperative international approach (Plan A) is better than the alternatives because the alternatives involve being in a race during the intelligence explosion, which incurs huge risks. I’m not confident about the exact variant of...

We can put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that ... shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen. But whoever wins with AI wins.

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...

The U.S. and China won’t move in lockstep on AI safety, and forging mutually binding agreements with real teeth is probably not possible right now.