Expert opinions on AI Ethics

Without a shared governance baseline, AI in our sector might develop in proprietary and uneven ways, deepening the very divides the panel describes and leaving smaller and developing country operators behind.

The answer isn't convergence for its own sake. We can push too hard on one thing. But if you have one standard, you could risk a lowest common denominator outcome that can cost us the innovation system as well and might have a risk on the national in...

Because we have the same rules applicable everywhere in the world. No matter if you take a plane in Kabul or if you take a plane in New York, the same safety rules apply everywhere. This is exactly what we need to make AI a success for business and f...

A one-size-fits-all approach to AI governance will not be effective. We all face different risks, priorities, levels of digital development, and regulatory environments. Effective governance requires shared principles that can be implemented flexibly...

Even after 3 years working on AI capability evaluations, the recent pace of progress has been a shock. To avoid catastrophic harms from AGI, we need much, much better coordination.

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...

By framing AI as a mysterious entity, an existential threat, a utopian savior, or a moral scapegoat, these narratives obscure the reality of AI as a statistical tool.

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...

We aim to develop artificial intelligence that delivers return on investment for businesses, rather than superintelligence.

I cannot exclude the possibility that future machines might regard themselves as autonomous individuals with personal preferences and aversions.

In 2005, I would have answered ‘no’ to the question of whether you could have a mind that was not biological—that existed in the substrate of silicon. Now I just don’t know.

Being open to the possibility that LLMs are conscious is the same as being open to the possibility that Microsoft Word is conscious.

We think that the smart way to balance these two truths is to allow AI developers to write their own safety standards, but require them to be transparent about what they are, so we can hold them to their own promises.

Our view is that AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, and also that regulators understand well the sectors they are regulating. They understand the risks that are present and understand, as many noble Lords have raise...

A more tractable near-term proposal is mandatory pre-release evaluation against a defined set of uplift benchmarks, particularly for chemical and biological capability, with results published before weights ship.

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

Post-hoc explanations have no guarantee of being faithful, because the model was never trained to make them valid. The alternative is to make interpretability part of the training contract.

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;

The UK must lead an international agreement to prohibit the development of superintelligence until it can be proven safe. If we fail, every other ambition for our country risks being swept aside. The clock is ticking.

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.

What is needed is not to slow innovation but to harness it — to channel AI’s momentum toward outcomes that reinforce trust, safety and societal well-being.

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.

A doctrine whose trigger mechanism can be this thoroughly disputed cannot function as a deterrent. Deterrence requires certainty. MAD worked because both sides knew, with something close to certainty, what a launch would produce. MACD, as currently s...