Expert opinions on AI Ethics

If anyone, anywhere builds a superhuman artificial intelligence using present methods, the most likely outcome is catastrophe.

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.

My own view, after talking with colleagues in the AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, is that a moratorium would be unenforceable.

Door samen met Europese partners te investeren in AI versterken we onze economie én onze digitale soevereiniteit.

Middle powers like the UK and Canada will not win the race for ever larger AI models, but through collaboration they can win the deployment race.

Developers publish broad, top-level safety and ethics frameworks that sound reassuring, but are publishing limited empirical evidence needed to actually understand the risks.

The draft implementing regulation should clearly differentiate between API access, which should be the preferred method for safety evaluations where access to documents and relevant information are deemed insufficient, and “further” means of access, ...

We at the Futures Project think that there's a 70% chance of all humans dead or something similarly bad.

So when people predict a high degree of existential risk from AGI, I don’t actually think “arguing back” on their chosen terms is the correct response. Radical agnosticism is the correct response, where all specific scenarios are pretty unlikely. Non...

Those extreme risks are still science fiction. So these speeches are largely diversions, very deliberately crafted.

The vote marks an important step in the EU’s internal procedure for concluding the Framework Convention and reflects institutional support for the first international legally binding treaty addressing artificial intelligence in the context of human r...

For me, a one-sided moratorium which ties our hands behind our backs while the likes of North Korea and the al-Qaedas of the world crack on: no, I am afraid that that worries me even more.

Such technological advancement will provide society with invaluable tools to address critical global challenges, including drug discovery, economic growth and climate change.

This is going to be the most productive decade in the history of our species. But in order to truly reap the benefits of AI, we need to learn how to contain it. Paradoxically, part of that will mean collectively saying no to certain forms of progress...

There’s no such thing as AGI. There is human-level AI, but human intelligence is extremely specialised. So calling it general intelligence is complete nonsense.

The challenge ahead is therefore not merely regulatory. In a deeper sense, it is about governing rationality itself, ensuring that as these systems grow more capable, they remain accountable, interpretable and anchored in values that cannot be reduce...

We have a very natural instinct to say: we want as much interpretability as possible. One of the sci-fi worry cases is that agents start speaking in languages to each other that we don't understand. [...] I bet there are ways to define boundaries tha...

[...] principles requiring that AI be explicable are misguided. We should be deciding which decisions require explanations. Automation is still an option;

There appear to be no obvious technical barriers to creating AI systems whose computational and architectural features could give rise to consciousness.

Because of how human nature has been expressed throughout our history and continues to express itself today, developing conscious machines with what for humans might be undetectable and incomprehensible minds is a monumentally dangerous idea.

There's no good reason to think AI is, or could ever be, conscious.

Inkling reports reasoning, agentic, factuality, chat, vision, audio, and safety benchmark results at effort=0.99.

However, it is important to differentiate regulating applications (which we need) vs. regulating the technology (which is ill-advised).

We think it’s still good to recommend what would actually be good, even if you think that your audience is probably not going to listen.

The tech development seems ~plausible but the politics feel quite naive. Like I just can’t see Canadian voters letting China construct thousands of datacenters in 2030, no matter how good the economics are. Esp if the pitch is “we chose you since you...