Expert opinions on AI Safety

While outcomes are likely to be limited, opening a channel where both sides could share observations and jointly monitor AI safety incidents would be an important starting point [...].

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...

Two years after its opening for signature in Vilnius, the Convention has attracted 21 signatures from across Europe and beyond, including Switzerland, Canada, Japan, the United States of America and Uruguay, reflecting its global reach and the growin...

The U.S. and China won’t move in lockstep on AI safety, and forging mutually binding agreements with real teeth is probably not possible right now.

Governments should provide clear, simple explanations for how an AI system reaches an outcome.

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...

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...

It is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced. That’s why I am introducing legislation to immediately pause the development of increasingly powerful AI and ban the creation of systems that hu...

Congress should immediately ban AI systems too powerful to control.

Now. My take is that if we were to carefully analyse this question of exactly when we should slow down, it would be a while ago in the past, because we’re just too close to this crazy future. Trying to be super precise about exactly when in the futur...

If we allow artificial superintelligence to be built it could risk the security freedom and lives of Americans. We need to ban the development of superintelligence so we never get to the place where there are machines that go beyond humans’ ability t...

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...

One rather draconian solution to all these problems, proposed earlier this week by Andrea Miotti, would be to create an “International Treaty to Ban Superintelligence.” Why worry about what to do with the latest and greatest models if you can make th...

For example, something suggested by several prominent academics is that AI at some point may need to be granted legal personhood, in the context of the ability to sue or be sued, or to show up in court. People get antsy about the term “personhood” fo...

This article does not argue that AI should be granted personhood or human rights. Also, it does not equate AI with humans. What I address here is a design issue: if AI actually functions within society, organizations, and business operations, its act...

Yet autonomy does not give an AI system legal personality. The law does not wait for an AI to ‘decide’ anything.

Having a kill switch to prevent AI catastrophes should be considered a bare minimum protection. The powers conferred by this amendment are not just nice to have; they are fundamental in safeguarding our national security.

If you’re relying on a ‘kill switch’ to stop an AI agent, you’ve already made a fundamental mistake. A properly governed agent is simply never handed the task, so there is nothing to kill.

I'm not sure that pauses don't work. I think labs are begging for what they call pacing. So it's not about a technology pause, but it's about a pause for governance.

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.

The way to get there is a shared machine-readable format. I call it a Safety Framework Card.

Countries should not restrict open-weight AI models.

The physical foundations of frontier artificial intelligence, the fabrication of advanced semiconductors and the operation of computing infrastructure at the largest scales, shall be subject to international transparency, so that the concentration of...

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...

Policymakers do not need to approach each innovation in isolation and should not treat every emerging technology as a first-of-its-kind policy problem.

In writing my forthcoming book, The Trust Code, I interviewed the people who run AI inside the world’s most critical systems, from energy grids and payment networks to technology giants. One pattern kept surfacing. The organizations that scale AI wit...

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.

But if governments don’t invest in the safety infrastructure now, public trust will erode, and the opportunity to leverage benefits from AI will go away, and then we’re looking at deepening inequality.

Future risk reports, system cards and external evaluations should be assessed for reproducible methods, clear separation between simulated and real actions, disclosure of missed detections, and evidence that safety interventions do not simply make pr...

For the most advanced frontier AI models, an independent, federally overseen, industry-backed organization could set safety standards and verify independent, voluntary audits, similar to how other critical sectors are managed.

The following practices are mapped to Australia’s 8 AI Ethics Principles, demonstrating how governments can practically apply them to their assurance of AI. [...] Governments should identify and consult with stakeholders, including subject matter and...