Expert opinions on AI Regulation

It’s an extremely powerful technology, just like the power of the atom was a new, extraordinary, powerful technology. And it’s very important to be prudent when the scientists who are developing it are telling you ‘maybe we should take a break?’

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...

Zero risk means we lose. If that’s the game we’re going to play, we will lose. Managing the risk responsibly, that's right on. Winning the race, I think, is an imperative.

And I think from their perspective, many of them, they're very much open to looking for ways of making sure that AI does not displace or ultimately destroy humanity, but rather is a tool for human beings.

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.

To declare today’s AI conscious simply because it speaks fluently would go far beyond the available evidence. But to declare that a machine could never become conscious would also claim more certainty than science presently allows.

We will not just one day have an easy answer where everybody will agree.

AI cannot become conscious, nor can any machine aspect of technology or humanity.

The best way to guarantee safety [...] is for those creating the technology to be liable for what they build and generate.

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 should also slow down their development until we find a way to make this technology safe and channel its power towards the goals we truly have as a society.

The question that the noble Lord posed was: do we therefore go for a moratorium? That would be highly desirable, but I do not think that it will be possible in the short term.

The Technology Secretary rejected calls to pause the development of artificial intelligence, describing such a move as “a double betrayal” of British talent and British interests.

To better understand and mitigate these emerging cybersecurity risks, the global community needs stronger standards for monitoring and incident disclosure.

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...

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.

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.

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.

With AI, although potential compensatory mechanisms such as new tasks and productivity gains are promised, history cautions us that such benefits are neither automatic nor equitably shared. [...] Prominent tax scholars have argued that a new, targete...

To date, BPC has not taken a position on whether AI should be taxed and does not endorse any particular option in this issue brief. [...] The code treats labor and capital differently: Employers owe payroll taxes on wages, while investments in equipm...

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...