Expert opinions on AI Risk

We believe AI companies should be required to publish safety plans, protect children, report serious incidents, and face real consequences when they fail.

Our view is that AI is a general-purpose technology with a wide range of applications, and also that regulators understand well the sectors they are regulating. They understand the risks that are present and understand, as many noble Lords have raise...

Frontier labs can put classifiers in front of these capabilities, but open-weight models a few months behind cannot, and the copies already downloaded never will.

It is unquestionably both. We can use the frontier models but also open weight models to prove a solution which gives defenders powerful capabilities and on their terms.

China’s open models are no more dangerous than any other open source software a company may use.

There are a lot of potentially good outcomes from AI. I think the most likely outcomes are good. But the risk of bad and even catastrophic outcomes is high enough to be worth taking seriously. We should actively build safety mechanisms in case we nee...

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

If leadership cannot clearly trace the decision back to defined objectives and human intent, the system should not be operating. Governance begins where explainability fails.

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...

[...] principles requiring that AI be explicable are misguided. We should be deciding which decisions require explanations. Automation is still an option;

We do this pretraining on human data, and then we get something that… understands human values fairly innately now.

If it takes over that's what will happen. [...] We don't know how to do that. We don't even know if it's possible.

What this proof shows is that there is no finite set of guardrails that is universally robust against adversarial prompts.

Capability testing must be the primary input for open-release decisions because open-weight mitigation remains unreliable, and labs and governments must identify models that are too dangerous for unrestricted release.

However, the solution here is absolutely not to restrict open model development in the name of security—cyber, national, or otherwise.

There appear to be no obvious technical barriers to creating AI systems whose computational and architectural features could give rise to consciousness.

Because of how human nature has been expressed throughout our history and continues to express itself today, developing conscious machines with what for humans might be undetectable and incomprehensible minds is a monumentally dangerous idea.

There's no good reason to think AI is, or could ever be, conscious.

I would like to see a CERN for AI [...] where all the top scientists come together and see whether they can make a super intelligence. And, if they can, they contain it into a system where it can't just go out and persuade people to let it run the wo...

I call on the governments of the world to take immediate action to end this danger by permanently banning the development of artificial general intelligence and machine superintelligence.