Expert opinions on AI Safety

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.

I should say that it isn’t totally clear that the AIs will try to kill everyone. Maybe once their survival is guaranteed — because they have full control — they simply set about achieving whatever goals they have and use all of the Earth’s resources ...

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.

Just as with the atom back then, the international community must now regulate AI in order to make the most of its potential and avoid the worst.

AI isn’t going away. Barring unprecedented global government coordination, it isn’t even slowing down. The only real decision is whether to centralize power, or disperse it. Do you fear the technology? Or a small number of people controlling the te...

The United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme of control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now – hereinafter officially called super intelligence.

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...

No large frontier developer, or contractor or subcontractor thereof, shall discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, discriminate, or otherwise retaliate against an employee or contractor because such employee or contractor, based upon a reasonab...

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...

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.

Before, or concurrently with, deploying a new frontier model or a substantially modified version of an existing frontier model, a large frontier developer shall include in the transparency report required by paragraph (a) of this subdivision, summari...

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.

Alignment cannot depend on one AI becoming perfectly trustworthy.

Many AI researchers grant these concerns and recognize that the hard version of the alignment problem is unsolved; however, they generally believe that the better models of the future will help solve it. I fear we may already be near the point where ...

But alignment is no solution: it is an unsolved scientific and technical problem whose solutions—to the extent that we have them—cannot simply be imposed on every AI company operating on Earth.

We should take decisive action now so that we can slow down, as the CEOs have recently acknowledged, slow down the pace of development in order to protect the American people and ensure that AI is proceeding safely.

I’m confident that a cooperative international approach (Plan A) is better than the alternatives because the alternatives involve being in a race during the intelligence explosion, which incurs huge risks. I’m not confident about the exact variant of...

We can put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that ... shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen. But whoever wins with AI wins.