Expert opinions on AI Safety

There's much more to do, including giving CAISI the authority to create the standards we need to know whether a frontier model is safe before it ships, not after something goes wrong.

However, it is important to differentiate regulating applications (which we need) vs. regulating the technology (which is ill-advised).

AI personhood isn't about recognizing AI as morally equivalent to humans. It's about recognizing that AI is functionally equivalent to corporations — powerful, consequential, and too complex to be managed through old legal frameworks.

This Constitution recognizes three categories of constitutional persons: Operators, Agents, and Affected Parties. Each has distinct rights and obligations that together form a governance ecosystem. The Operator deploys and configures; the Agent acts ...

Under the status quo, AI systems are considered tools and the companies creating them are on the hook. This rightfully keeps humans accountable.

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.

And by the way, there's the existential threat that as AI becomes smarter than humans, it can [...] become independent and lead to catastrophic impacts.

So when people predict a high degree of existential risk from AGI, I don’t actually think “arguing back” on their chosen terms is the correct response. Radical agnosticism is the correct response, where all specific scenarios are pretty unlikely. Non...

These fears (or hopes) of a nascent superintelligence that will spontaneously arise if we just give enough computing power and training data to large language models are absurd on their face.

To begin, we should formalize international norms for military and civilian uses of AI to regulate areas where full human control over the technology is essential. The Responsible Artificial Intelligence Defense Act is a practical first step toward e...

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.

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

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.

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...

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...

Alignment is not solved but it increasingly looks solvable [...] Since then a lot has happened: pretraining continued improving and RL became a much bigger deal.

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.

AI alignment is not something that works in theory but is difficult to put into practice. It's something that doesn't work in theory.

Nefarious actors can use open models maliciously, [...] whereas developers of closed models have more means to identify and disrupt this malicious use.

These studies, on their own, are insufficient evidence to demonstrate increased marginal societal risk from open foundation models.

Transparency is the greatest safeguard. [...] When codes are open and shared, millions of young minds can make them safer and better.

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...

Well, there are positive signs, for instance, like Henry Kissinger was recently suggested in foreign affairs that the US cooperate with China on this issue now, but before it's too late. So I think some people are recognizing the the importance of tr...

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.

platforms that host libraries of open-source AI models to ensure that models are uploaded with appropriate system and safety information

I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.

However, it is important to differentiate regulating applications (which we need) vs. regulating the technology (which is ill-advised).