Expert opinions on AI Governance

Society may eventually find it useful to create a category of limited artificial legal personality without deciding that the entities enjoying it possess subjective experience. [...] Corporations already demonstrate that legal persons can enjoy only ...

There is a reasonable chance, however, that if the vision for AI agents comes to pass, then for our markets and legal accountability regimes to function effectively, agents will have to have the capacity to sue and be sued directly. This is the defin...

An AI agent is not a legal person, and in our law liability for this type of incident always sits with a person or a company. The liability has to be traced back to the intent of a person or a company that created or directed the agent.

An agent with production access, payment authority, persistent credentials, or the ability to direct other agents should face stronger evaluation, logging, approval, and incident-reporting expectations. [...] For serious incidents, a report should an...

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.

I should say that it isn’t totally clear that the AIs will try to kill everyone. Maybe once their survival is guaranteed — because they have full control — they simply set about achieving whatever goals they have and use all of the Earth’s resources ...

We have to change the way we talk about AI risk because for a very long time, it’s either existential and everything is going to die and the killer robots are coming, or it doesn’t really matter.

AI doomers say if we build AI we might die. But they have it backwards. [...] AI is helping us solve these. Slowing progress doesn’t keep us safer, it guarantees more preventable deaths.

Just as with the atom back then, the international community must now regulate AI in order to make the most of its potential and avoid the worst.

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 United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme of control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now – hereinafter officially called super intelligence.

However, in the complexity of the work that they do, to ask for regulatory relief for antitrust or product liability relief — that I don’t think makes sense. When you’re asking for regulation, don’t ask for relief of the current ones.

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.

There should be agreements around incident reporting and information sharing, so countries can learn from serious failures or unexpected behaviours. We need communication channels that remain open, even when competition is intense.

Rather than creating entirely new channels, policymakers should focus on ensuring that existing channels can effectively incorporate information related to frontier models and agents. Building on trusted relationships will be faster and more effectiv...

The scientific work now is to ensure reasoning of powerful AI models remains observable as they become more capable, or to build the tools to read it where it is not, and to verify that complete AI systems, not just the models inside them, can be rel...

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...

Explainable AI (XAI) is often offered as the answer to the black box problem and is broadly defined as “machine learning techniques that make it possible for human users to understand, appropriately trust, and effectively manage AI.” Around the world...

Proposals under consideration include requiring independent third parties to be embedded in frontier AI companies to verify safety frameworks and independently assess safety evaluations, as well as requiring companies to develop an emergency shutoff,...

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.

This suggests pacing the advances: not training or deploying AIs without a strong safety case that convinces independent experts.

I believe that attempting to deliberately pace AI development will be extremely difficult, and could do more harm than good if done without proper care. However, I am signing this statement because, if an attempt at pacing does occur, it would be bet...

We will only encourage super intelligence. We’re going to encourage it, not rein it in.

Each large frontier developer shall begin to develop a frontier AI framework to govern how the large frontier developer will: [...] Establish thresholds to assess whether a frontier model has capabilities that could pose a catastrophic risk [...] App...

Developers should not be the sole judges of the systems they build. It’s like asking students to grade their own homework. Independent evaluations, conducted by government or qualified third parties, should be a standard part of the AI ecosystem.

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.

No large frontier developer, or contractor or subcontractor thereof, shall discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an employee or contractor because such employee or contractor, based upon a reasonab...

Connecticut already has strong whistleblower laws that protect employees from retaliation. [...] creating a separate, AI-specific whistleblower regime could lead to confusion, duplication, and unintended consequences for employers operating in highly...

Open-weight models introduce new and unique risks – they provide near-frontier capabilities which could be used for criminal purposes, are widely available to anyone who intends harm, and are easier to misuse. [...] Major frontier AI companies such a...

Restricting access to a dual-use AI model is precautionary only if it delays harmful actors more than defenders. That condition varies across actors: a state agency or organized criminal group may obtain a substitute through theft, distillation, inte...

If safeguards are properly followed, businesses, including banks, should have enough guarantees to essentially run any model, regardless of where they come from.

Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large frontier developer shall include in the transparency report required by paragraph (a) of this subdivision, summari...

For the most advanced frontier AI models, an independent, federally overseen, industry-backed organization could set safety standards and verify independent, voluntary audits, similar to how other critical sectors are managed.

To address these issues, we need to build a CERN for AI-assisted science. [...] Canada and the EU have explicitly agreed to explore cooperation on fundamental AI research, agentic systems for scientific discovery, access to advanced AI infrastructure...

But the main regret I have with this talk is that I wish I had prepared a more for the section on a “CERN for AI.” The idea behind such a project is to pool many countries’ and companies’ resources into a single (possibly physically decentralized) ci...

There are many conceivable versions of a “CERN for AI.” But the version that seems politically realistic (a new catch-up lab) probably would not do much for safety, while the versions that would materially improve safety (e.g., pause + merge of all c...