Expert opinions on AI Governance

Every AI agent should have its own identity and access to only what it needs. [...] High-impact or irreversible actions should require human approval.

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.

Just because you’ve developed a new drug doesn’t mean you can put it on the market. You have to persuade the FDA. That takes about a billion dollars’ worth of work. That is at least the requirement that should be demanded of AI.

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.

As generative AI technologies continue to evolve, clear disclosure standards to preserve transparency are essential to civic engagement. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to keep up the pace with this rapidly advancing technology, leaving voters vul...

You can say dishonest things whether they're AI or not.

We have slowed down reinforcement learning and training runs because we do believe that safety should be of utmost priority. Of course, we want to hit AGI as soon as possible and we want to get there first. But we also want to make sure that AGI bene...

Governments must assume their responsibilities. It is the first responsibility of any government to protect its citizens – including from the threats of artificial intelligence. National action is essential. But global coordination is also indispensa...

We need to think about the regulation. I don't think we need to stifle it or stop the growth of it, but equally, it will be foolish for anybody to think that we can let it flow to a level, and then if an accident happens, then we'll think about it.

Decisions involving the use of lethal force, the deprivation of human life, and the escalation of conflict must never be abdicated to autonomous algorithms. Meaningful human control and accountability remain the non-negotiable bedrock of internationa...

A broad consensus has emerged that, regardless of the system, humans must retain responsibility for decisions to use force.

The ICRC has called for legally binding rules that would: Prohibit those autonomous weapons that pose the greatest threat, namely: “Unpredictable” autonomous weapons, whose effects cannot be sufficiently understood, predicted and explained; and auton...

States have a responsibility – to their own populations, and to those in other states who will face the consequences of the proliferation and use of AI-enabled weapons and by conflict escalation – to set clear limits. A company cannot determine what ...

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.

AI companies should be held fully liable for any harm caused by their products.

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.

We need to be really careful with open-source on safety. I can't talk for open models. But by definition, there's more risk with them.

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.

We’re here today to tell Flock to get out of our communities. They’re in our neighborhoods right now, and the federal government is sending millions of dollars to states, cities, and police departments to fund systems of mass surveillance, like Flock...

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...

I have grave concerns that banning technology until it is legislated will choke innovation, it will drive genuine use cases away, and as technology is always developing, are we not in danger of ‘tomorrow never comes’ when it comes to legislation keep...

Embedded evaluators are independent external experts placed within frontier AI companies to provide ongoing assessments and validation of a company’s safety, security, and operational systems, practices, and claims. [...] Contracts should contain spe...

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...

Embedded evaluators are independent external experts placed within frontier AI companies to provide ongoing assessments and validation of a company’s safety, security, and operational systems, practices, and claims. [...] As frontier AI companies beg...

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.

Supporting mass surveillance or utilizing facial recognition and biometric technologies for targeted tracking across platforms without consent.

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 ...

We ask them to work with the communities using this technology to decide what rules should govern it and not to spread misinformation or ban a critical public safety tool outright that is helping to make communities safer.

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...

Either way, an AI agent is an automated tool, not a legal entity, so accountability always lands on the human administrators who configured its permissions.

At the information-processing level one can make the argument that LLMs do something very similar to what humans do: They extract patterns from language, compare them to other patterns of that language, and assign meaning.

Yes—intelligence can probably be artificial. But artificial intelligence does not therefore have to possess an artificial version of the human mind. [...] What has not been established is that current AI possesses consciousness, subjective experience...

The AI cheerleaders also seem to have forgotten that many of our subjects involve distinctly human engagements and responses: beauty; value; obligation; virtue — they all presume human feelings, sentiments and perceptions that statistical aggregation...

Internal use: The same systemic-risk assessment applies to internal use of frontier models, including research, operational systems, and internal products. Internal deployment is assessed against the same capability thresholds and safeguards as pre-r...