Expert opinions on AI Safety

OpenAI has long believed there should ultimately be an international organization that helps coordinate leading AI efforts to reduce catastrophic risk. One goal of such an organization should be to make it possible for the world to take coordinated a...

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...

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...

Rather than allow protections to exist in only a handful of states or force innovators to navigate dozens of different legal regimes, our framework would establish one national standard.

If policymakers are worried about the most advanced systems, then oversight should focus on the highest-capability end of the stack. Commerce already moved in this direction when BIS proposed reporting requirements for advanced AI models and large co...

According to the proposed rule, a covered US person will be required to provide quarterly reports to BIS if the US person “engages in, or plans, within six months, to engage in ‘applicable activities.’” “Applicable activities” include: “Conducting a...

Establishing a pre-release review or licensing regime for AI companies would grant the government, particularly the executive branch, significant control over AI technologies that could hinder innovation or control expression. [...] Such an approach ...

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...

Plot the same improvements on a linear y-axis and you get steady incremental gains, impressive but not the hockey stick that triggered the panic. [...] We don't have evidence that Mythos is actually an important step towards broad superintelligence.

If AI doesn't kill us, and there's no permanent dictatorship, and there's no permanent underclass, then we get a post-scarcity society, plus superintelligent AIs that we can set to working on other problems like disease and social decay.

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...

AI has become the new climate change. It's this imminent catastrophe that is requiring all this government intervention. But there's very little evidence to support it.

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...

Currently I just see elected legislatures quite captured by the tech industry and incapable or unwilling to regulate.

New York is poised to be the first government in the United States to do what Americans have been screaming for: require basic guardrails for AI safety. Developers have promised to keep us safe, and this bipartisan bill simply ensures that they keep ...

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

There is AI that is not responding to instructions, to commands, and there are documented cases of that. [...] If we don't consider ways to manage what we know is occurring already, and there is use of autonomous weapons already, if we are not lookin...

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...

We cannot ignore the danger of a race to the bottom between competing tech companies or between states, rogue or otherwise. A moratorium and binding international regulation of ASI is, frankly, our only hope, however hard it will be to agree. It will...

a significant overreach of the U.N.'s mandate and competence [...] AI governance is not a matter for the U.N. to dictate. [...] We will not cede authority over AI to international bodies that may be influenced by authoritarian regimes seeking to impo...

Technology better serves people when it's grounded in their feedback and expectations. This Forum reinforces how companies and researchers can collaborate to make sure AI agents are built to be responsive to the diverse needs of people who use them. ...

We have to ensure that A.I. remains subject to human control. Whether it’s a government, the military, or any kind of organization, that is thinking about using A.I. to automate, say, critical infrastructure, we need to ensure that we have humans in ...

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.

Current LLMs are intrinsically unsafe, but with world models, guardrail objectives can be implemented — so by construction, they will not knowingly produce actions that will produce dangerous results.

Beyond the peer preservation, what we would like to emphasize is not only this specific scenario but also such misaligned behavior can emerge in many different scenarios. [...] Peer preservation is just like the tip of the iceberg.

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.

“If we pursue [our current approach], then we will eventually lose control over the machines. But, we can take a different route that actually leads to AI systems that are beneficial to humans,” said Russell. “We could, in fact, have a better civiliz...

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;

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.