Expert opinions on AI Policy

But if governments don’t invest in the safety infrastructure now, public trust will erode, and the opportunity to leverage benefits from AI will go away, and then we’re looking at deepening inequality.

It is really important, given the stakes, that people who develop AI and those who test it don’t have relationships with each other.

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 following practices are mapped to Australia’s 8 AI Ethics Principles, demonstrating how governments can practically apply them to their assurance of AI. [...] Governments should identify and consult with stakeholders, including subject matter and...

It is calling on the government to require AI companies to monitor and report severe loss of control incidents and to introduce emergency powers to manage severe loss of control incidents including temporarily restricting AI services.

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.

For funders and international community: support and/or collaborate with local actors best placed to detect AI harm, and back efforts to establish cross-border AI incident information sharing.

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...

What humanity needs is an international AI nonproliferation treaty.

The U.S. and China won’t move in lockstep on AI safety, and forging mutually binding agreements with real teeth is probably not possible right now.

Government should be pressing Washington for published criteria before access is restricted, advance warning and exemptions for allies, as we already handle security of supply in energy and defense. At home, it should require critical infrastructure ...

I believe we should tax AI tokens and robots. [...] The tax system nudges you toward replacing people with machines.

The proposals differ in detail, but they cite the same story: Labor’s share of national income has declined, and AI is accelerating workers’ losses by shifting more economic activity to capital. The tax code makes all of this worse by undertaxing cap...

Open-weight systems are the lifeblood of open research and innovation in AI. They increase transparency, allow for widespread red teaming, and decrease market concentration. However, open-weight models also pose unique risks. They can allow harmful A...

If I were to try to give one prescription, it would be to promote openness, because AI is amazing technology and I want it to be in everyone’s hands.

Such technological advancement will provide society with invaluable tools to address critical global challenges, including drug discovery, economic growth and climate change.

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...

Many leading companies are engaged in a single-minded pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI). [...] Rather than racing to replace people, we should build AI tools that amplify human expertise and expand opportunity.

Alignment cannot depend on one AI becoming perfectly trustworthy.

The relational alignment approach proposed here has not been subjected to adversarial testing comparable to the studies it cites. Until that testing is conducted, the proposal remains a theoretical alternative, not a validated solution.

The core claim of this contribution is that strong ethical alignment is conceptually misguided and that weak alignment will remain limited.

If an incident is detected or reported, you should always be able to ‘pull the plug’ and halt autonomous AI agent activity immediately.

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.

About 1,400 citizens applied, and we randomly selected 200 of them to participate as members of the evaluation panel. [...] Ultimately, 185 citizens participated.

The Federal Communications Commission initiated this proceeding to protect consumer from unwanted AI-generated calls while ensuring that our rules do not hinder the potential benefits that AI can offer, including making telecommunications more readil...

We can’t just invest in software and hardware; we have to invest in sovereignty.

Europe should prioritize “code over concrete.”