Expert opinions on Ethics

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...

Those responsible for the different phases of the AI system lifecycle should be identifiable and accountable for the outcomes of the AI systems, and human oversight of AI systems should be enabled.

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.

Alignment cannot depend on one AI becoming perfectly trustworthy.

The relational alignment approach proposed here has not been subjected to adversarial testing comparable to the studies it cites. Until that testing is conducted, the proposal remains a theoretical alternative, not a validated solution.

The core claim of this contribution is that strong ethical alignment is conceptually misguided and that weak alignment will remain limited.

No safety system can eliminate every dual-use risk. Once model weights are public, no developer can guarantee control over every downstream modification or use. Model-level safeguards can raise the barrier to abuse, but they cannot provide absolute c...

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...

Shared access to open-source AI systems is important for protection in a world where AI can be used to hack into electronic systems, like voting systems and benefits infrastructure.

We analyze approximately 497,000 candidate-vacancy pipeline entries from September 2017 to September 2022, covering seven pipeline stages that span automated processing, human discretion, candidate data, and employer decisions. Aggregate outcomes acr...

As with any technology, the need for regulation depends on how it is deployed, the nature of harm that may be caused, and whether existing measures are effective in addressing those harms. Where existing measures are assessed to be inadequate and a s...

The extensive disclosure, auditing, and human-review mandates could slow hiring processes, increase administrative costs, and discourage employers—especially smaller ones—from using tools that streamline workforce management.

Forcing companies to pay up when powerful AI systems cause harm may be one of the strongest incentives for preventing that harm in the first place.

It’s a very thorny area. It’s uncharted territory. There’s a good argument to be made on either side.

I just don’t think the developer is in a position to know exactly how their product is being used.

Pause AI development. It is not too late to avoid disaster. Stop building machines that humans cannot control ... Let me be very clear: If you do not take appropriate action now, my colleagues and I in the U.S. Senate will.

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...

While we continue to work toward a world free from both nuclear weapons and autonomous killing machines, we welcome the focus in the ongoing negotiations on ensuring ‘meaningful human control’ over autonomous weapons.

A broad consensus has emerged that, regardless of the system, humans must retain responsibility for decisions to use force.

A total prohibition on all autonomous weapons would likely fail to distinguish between high-risk anti-personnel systems and narrowly bounded defensive systems used against incoming missiles or munitions.

All AI systems considered a clear threat to the safety, livelihoods and rights of people are banned. The AI Act prohibits individual criminal offence risk assessment or prediction.

Artificial intelligence, digital forensics, and geospatial intelligence are transforming how we anticipate threats and conduct investigations.

AI tools can no longer “excessively cater to users, induce emotional dependence or addiction, and damage users’ real interpersonal relationships,” while also banning virtual relationships with minors.

Children have given us a clear diagnosis of the problem. They aren't asking us to block AI innovation, but it shouldn't be a case of cleaning up the mess after harm has happened either.

We all just want peace of mind that our kids will be okay growing up in this era of algorithms and AI. That’s why we need guardrails in place to keep up with ever-evolving technology like chatbots and make sure our kids’ safety, mental health, and we...

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...

Some people argue for personhood for agentic AI, and then people like me ask, ‘Well, how would an AI buy liability insurance?’

These workstreams build on existing Government actions including already legislated criminal offences to ban the sharing of non-consensual deepfake sexually explicit material, and work to ban nudify apps.

A handful of bills introduced this year seek to categorically ban “deepfakes.” In other words, these bills would make it unlawful to create or share AI-generated content depicting someone saying or doing something that the person did not in reality s...

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...

In the face of these threats, I urge the Government to take the following steps: first, to publicly recognise that superintelligence poses an extinction threat to humanity; secondly, for the UK to prevent the development of superintelligence on its s...