Expert opinions on AI Governance

If you ask the model developers, Was the AI plotting to take over the world during training?, you want the answer to be a resounding no. The actual answer is: I don't know. Nobody checked.

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...

AI companies should be transparent about everything but the model weights, so outside groups can check the AI company's homework.

Open innovation is foundational to AI progress, and broad access to models, data, and tools is essential to accelerating breakthroughs. By adopting the Linux Foundation’s OpenMDW framework for NVIDIA open model families, we’re helping establish a sim...

MAP-AI, a new control-plane system architecture for aligned decision-making under uncertainty, enforces alignment through Monte Carlo estimation of outcome distributions and admissibility-controlled policy selection rather than static model-level con...

If it takes over that's what will happen. [...] We don't know how to do that. We don't even know if it's possible.

Alignment cannot be “solved” through technical design alone, but must be managed through ongoing institutional processes that determine how objectives are set, how systems are evaluated, and how affected communities can contest or reshape those decis...

Legal personhood is the correct starting point.

This Constitution recognizes three categories of constitutional persons: Operators, Agents, and Affected Parties. Each has distinct rights and obligations that together form a governance ecosystem. The Operator deploys and configures; the Agent acts ...

Attributing legal personhood to agentic AI systems will not necessarily solve the problems presented by these systems, while raising numerous new problems about their identification, definition, representation and about the accountability of those wh...

The United States has a strong interest in the broad adoption of its frontier AI tools. From a cybersecurity standpoint, the United States should want its allies to harden their critical infrastructure against adversary penetration.

The UK would never be truly sovereign on AI if it lacked the ability to pull the plug when a model presents a threat to the country’s national security.

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.

All other student-facing AI must be educator-supervised, and "social companion" chatbots should be banned through age 16.

Children have given us a clear diagnosis of the problem. They aren't asking us to block AI innovation, but it shouldn't be a case of cleaning up the mess after harm has happened either.

But would I ban it for minors? There are many positive uses that we can imagine for kids with chatbots, and my concern is just the kind of “yes to this, no to that” world we can get into with bans.

Everyone should be scared that the Trump administration is weaving an expansive web of surveillance technologies — from facial recognition to license-plate readers to social-media monitoring and predictive AI tools — to track people.

This has effectively given police a very long leash to experiment with these technologies. And now we're in a tipping point situation where it's about to be expanded all over the country, and there's a real necessity for those legal frameworks to be ...

When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. ...

The deliberate misuse of someone’s image or voice without their consent for malign purposes should be a criminal offence. This Bill is a useful baseline and we need to move quickly to address this problem.

A handful of bills introduced this year seek to categorically ban “deepfakes.” In other words, these bills would make it unlawful to create or share AI-generated content depicting someone saying or doing something that the person did not in reality s...

These pieces of legislation require that the public be notified when AI is used in a political campaign and prohibits the unlawful use of AI to create fake ads. I am pleased to support both bills.

We should ask ourselves an important question: does the problem require government regulation?

Substantive SRO rules could also include red teaming requirements, minimum pre-deployment testing periods, minimum revenue allocation to safety, public disclosure of safety protocols, and third-party auditing.

This bill contains a critically flawed mandatory third-party audit requirement that creates an impossible compliance obligation on an unrealistic timeline.

Ensure AI cannot be the sole decision-maker in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions.

Hence, under the overarching ambit of the National AI Council and together with tripartite partners, we are studying the use of AI tools by businesses and its impact on employment, before deciding the most appropriate approach for Singapore.

The requirement of human review is one of the most burdensome compliance elements for employers, particularly in comparison to states that allow alternative processes rather than human review.

The following AI incidents shall be subject to mandatory reporting to the NAIRP within the timelines specified: deaths or serious physical harm attributable to an AI system (within six hours); significant violations of individuals' fundamental rights...

Timelines for incident reports are often set with well-intentioned urgency, but if they implicitly assume that root-cause analysis or full impact assessment has already been conducted, they will either produce premature and unreliable reports or plac...

I appreciate the intent behind the amendments and the shadow Minister’s position of understanding but not supporting them, which I share.

The real liability, in my view, is building AI systems and products that harm users, including children, without any measures to hold accountable those systems and the companies that build and deploy them.

Existing legal principles, such as under tort and contract law, can be applied by our courts to assess and determine liability in appropriate cases. That being said, we share the concerns raised by the Member, and will continue to study this issue, i...

States should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.

The State shall prohibit the import, export, transfer, sale, or deployment of AI systems that have been documented as being used for mass surveillance, occupation enforcement, targeted repression, or large-scale human rights violations.

The use of live facial recognition in our public spaces is an extraordinary expansion of state power that currently exists in a legal vacuum. We are not Luddites on these Benches; we recognise the utility of technology, but we must ensure that live f...

The new legal framework must include a meaningful regulatory regime which operationalises principles such as necessity, responsibility, proportionality, transparency, accountability and lawfulness. These principles should then structure and constrain...