Expert opinions on AI Policy

This sentiment of renting AI from someone rather than owning it is a national security risk [...] You need to fully control it.

Governments are on track to spend more than $1 trillion by 2030 chasing a sovereign stack, the full range of hardware and capabilities necessary to deploy and operate AI infrastructure. [...] In an interdependent system, the question shifts from how ...

to actually take my voice and use it to train something without my permission, I think that should be illegal.

If we create a new right to control training, that will not give creative workers control over AI training... It will give our bosses control over AI training, because they will amend our standard contracts to demand that we sign away our training ri...

AI has gone from "dumber than a child" to "expert level" in a few years in many domains. The gap between "expert level" and "above top geniuses" is smaller, so we expect it to take less time. This has been a pattern in fields like chess and Go, where...

Throwing more words and GPUs into the word-guessing program won't make it sentient. [...] one of our mares gives birth to a locomotive.

Public input is critical to ensuring that powerful AI serves humanity’s interests.

We need an international forum for discussion that establishes globally accepted standards for testing, provides expert and impartial analysis of capabilities and risks, and serves as a venue for cooperation among nations.

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...

Currently, so many needs for innovation are put under the label of AI that there will be no way to address them with a single organisation.

Our main focus is to build truly recursive, self-improving superintelligence at scale, which means that the entire process of ideation, implementation, and validation of research ideas would be automatic.

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...

A better tech future moves from artificial general intelligence to augmented collective intelligence, where AI amplifies rather than replaces human agency.

Good AI policy requires independent verification of safety. AB 1405 will take a significant step in creating the ecosystem for independent verification to become a reality. By working in concert with Sen. McNerney we are building a framework where Ca...

Finally, it’s not clear how well some of the act’s provisions reflect the current state of the AI ecosystem. The act demands that labs hire an independent third party to complete an annual audit of their protocols to ensure compliance with the act. T...

I'm somebody that believes that there always must be a human involved in the kill chain, and that we should not be making decisions to take lives based on an AI algorithm. We need to be able to make those decisions as humans, and those are discussion...

Personal view: I admire @AnthropicAI sticking by their principles but disagree with the principle itself. Putin won't fight fair so we should have autonomous AI weapons for sure.

While we would applaud any serious effort to regulate potentially dangerous AI technologies, any attempt to tie the hands of states in their efforts to keep working people safe is not acceptable. We oppose preemption of state authority to regulate th...

America should lead the world in artificial intelligence, not regulate ourselves into falling behind China through a patchwork of fifty different state laws.

The simplest form of treaty would be something like this, that the countries agree that if they do develop advanced AI: * That it will be done in a safe way. So maybe using techniques like Scientist AI or whatever else we have strong assurances for. ...

If somebody says, 'This technology is so powerful that we need a global treaty to slow it down,' then I would say: Then take your foot off the accelerator yourself if you think it's moving too fast.

Failure, in their eyes, means being left behind while AI automates large swaths of white-collar work – especially coding jobs, which until now have been a veritable licence to print money – and falling into the ranks of the permanent poor.

the evidence on how AI is affecting the labor market today is inconclusive, and claims about harmful impacts on particular groups of workers are premature.

Unless AI's rise is accompanied by an edict that people can no longer pursue new companies or initiatives, then the technology can't be a subjugation machine without some accompanying rise in empowerment. [...] Unless you're brutally pessimistic abou...

A good pause strategy would involve both sides being able to monitor the other's data centers to prevent illegal training, then limiting training to some slow mutually-agreeable rate that lets alignment researchers thoroughly test each generation of ...

This would be practically impossible, because the economic and national security stakes are simply too high for any superpower to willingly hit the brakes now. [...] Tracking decentralized computing resources, private data centers and algorithmic res...

From my perspective, digital sovereignty means the ability to exercise choice, control and governance across data, operational, technical and legal layers. This is not about technological isolation or excluding global partners. Europe must remain ope...

SB 315 takes the safety practices leading labs already follow voluntarily—publishing a safety framework, transparent reporting, protecting whistleblowers—and helps establish a baseline that every leading AI developer is expected to meet. [...] Illino...

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...

[...] And the whole world might have an interest in saying, hold on, wait -- let's not make artificial super intelligence until we can be sure that it can be controlled or done safely. [...] We can have all that while at the same time working togethe...

I come from the position of saying that moratoriums will not work. But we can work in co-operation with other nations that have already started regulating, such as South Korea and Australia, as well as work with our AI Security Institute in the Unite...