Expert opinions on AI Ethics

There's much more to do, including giving CAISI the authority to create the standards we need to know whether a frontier model is safe before it ships, not after something goes wrong.

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

Suppose I say to a chatbot, I saw the Grand Canyon flying to Chicago. And the chatbot says, that can't be right. The Grand Canyon is much too big to fly to Chicago. And I say, no, no, no, it was me flying to Chicago. While I was flying to Chicago, I ...

Computational functionalism claims that executing certain computations is sufficient for consciousness, regardless of the physical mechanisms implementing those computations. This view neglects a compelling alternative: that subcomputational biologic...

A conscious being isn’t a word-guessing app that knows more words and has more computing power to guess with.

And by the way, there's the existential threat that as AI becomes smarter than humans, it can [...] become independent and lead to catastrophic impacts.

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...

These fears (or hopes) of a nascent superintelligence that will spontaneously arise if we just give enough computing power and training data to large language models are absurd on their face.

Our main focus is to build truly recursive, self-improving superintelligence at scale, which means that the entire process of ideation, implementation, and validation of research ideas would be automatic.

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...

A better tech future moves from artificial general intelligence to augmented collective intelligence, where AI amplifies rather than replaces human agency.

The simplest form of treaty would be something like this, that the countries agree that if they do develop advanced AI: * That it will be done in a safe way. So maybe using techniques like Scientist AI or whatever else we have strong assurances for. ...

If somebody says, 'This technology is so powerful that we need a global treaty to slow it down,' then I would say: Then take your foot off the accelerator yourself if you think it's moving too fast.

[...] And the whole world might have an interest in saying, hold on, wait -- let's not make artificial super intelligence until we can be sure that it can be controlled or done safely. [...] We can have all that while at the same time working togethe...

I come from the position of saying that moratoriums will not work. But we can work in co-operation with other nations that have already started regulating, such as South Korea and Australia, as well as work with our AI Security Institute in the Unite...

platforms that host libraries of open-source AI models to ensure that models are uploaded with appropriate system and safety information

I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.

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

“If we pursue [our current approach], then we will eventually lose control over the machines. But, we can take a different route that actually leads to AI systems that are beneficial to humans,” said Russell. “We could, in fact, have a better civiliz...

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;