Expert opinions on AI Governance

If consciousness started to emerge in training, I would call for everyone to stop AI development until we could design out those properties.

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...

Anything we do to stop things in the AI space is probably just noise. It is also impossible to do this globally in a coordinated fashion.

As AI agents move from experimentation into production, they are increasingly capable of executing commands, accessing enterprise systems, modifying infrastructure, and making operational decisions without continuous human supervision. But what happe...

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.

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...

These models lack bodily experience, understanding the world largely through statistical associations. To advance embodiment in artificial intelligence and achieve genuine world comprehension, we posit that models must move beyond token associations ...

IMDA and CSA are therefore studying how to strengthen the reporting of serious AI-related incidents, including whether additional reporting or information-sharing arrangements are needed. We will draw on international approaches and build on existing...

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...

Transparency labels should be legally required for synthetic (AI) content in electoral communications such as ads.

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

Yea this is the most important result of the year, at the level of significance of “Attention Is All You Need”. It brings us from “is alignment even solvable” to “we may solve alignment in the next year.”

I used to always think that, you know, alignment will just fall out. I no longer believe that. So I think this alignment thing may be a harder, different problem.

As I see it, solving alignment for LLMs isn’t just impossible, it’s incoherent: we can’t even articulate what it would look like to succeed.

If Anthropic was just one voice among many, this would not matter. But given its market-leading position and the risk that the industry develops as an oligopoly, society as a whole may wish to have some say over what is good for it. There are ways to...

Turns out, we were being unnecessarily pessimistic. Even though the planet is on fire, extreme temperatures will not be the ones to knock us out of the evolutionary game. (So much for our soggy paper straws.) Instead, we’ve decided to build something...

To get from today’s AI to human extinction requires a long chain of assumptions. [...] Luckily, none of the steps on this list have come to pass yet. [...] However, something being difficult to disprove does not make it likely. [...] Possibility is b...

We do need to have some safeguards in place to make sure there are no unintended consequences, but, no, I do not think AI is going to imperil human existence.

We can put these companies on notice that they’re going to be evaluated by folks that understand the process, that understand the technology, and will be transparent and hold them accountable so that they create safe products, and they don’t send out...

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.

Some people worry that giving AIs separate legal personhood would let AI companies, or bad actors using AIs, shield themselves from responsibility. But it doesn’t have to work that way… when a Walmart delivery driver runs over a pedestrian, we want t...

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...

Machines are tools, not persons. Today, some propose granting these systems rights, or even legal personhood. Such an approach risks obscuring human responsibility and leaving those who suffer harm to confront a faceless entity.

Independent third-party AI auditors will act like financial accounting firms: investigating and verifying safety protocols and legal compliance. They’re a critical part of the safeguards needed around powerful frontier AI models.

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.

The seductive yet deeply problematic ability of AI to suggest suspects for law enforcement is yet another reason to put a stop to license plate surveillance, location tracking of any kind, and mass surveillance in general.

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.

The United States has a clear interest in helping its partners and allies navigate this choice strategically, and there are several steps it should take. Most importantly, Washington should develop frameworks to assure more reliable access to the U.S...

I wish to speak in support of Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to which I have added my name. We heard during Committee not only about the out-of-control behaviour from agents running AI models from OpenAI, Google and Me...

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...

To maximize the effectiveness of such provisions, policymakers should define a sensible range of time frames to report incidents, possibly with a graduated approach according to the gravity of the harm.

Open models have a tendency to be less safe a lot of the time than closed ones. Maybe it could be misused by someone who downloads it and modifies it to remove safeguards or to sharpen its harmful capabilities. This type of fine-tuning could cost hun...

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...

Open-weight models have been a boon for defenders. When Hugging Face investigated how OpenAI-powered agents penetrated its systems, proprietary models refused some of the forensic work, but the Chinese open-weight model GLM-5.2 helped reconstruct the...