Expert opinions on Ethics

However, in the complexity of the work that they do, to ask for regulatory relief for antitrust or product liability relief — that I don’t think makes sense. When you’re asking for regulation, don’t ask for relief of the current ones.

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.

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.

As AI becomes more autonomous the real question for business leaders is where human judgment matters most. What should machines be allowed to do independently? What should trigger human intervention? And who remains accountable for the outcome? [...]...

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.

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.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving recruitment from a largely human-administered process toward a socio-technical decision system in which algorithms source, rank, screen, assess, and recommend candidates. [...] It advances a risk-calibrated mode...

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.

The act will employ the precautionary principle to prohibit the introduction of AI tools into high-risk settings, such as education, health care or the delivery of public services, unless there is clear evidence that they will not cause harm. Where h...

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

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...

All of this seems great to me, and there are some things that I'm especially happy to see. Specifically, point number two: “The idea of model welfare is wrong. AIs should not have rights or legal personhood.”

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.

The mainstream take is that an AI lab should assess risk before deploying a new model externally. But I think risk assessment should come way earlier in the model lifecycle. Compare the situation with dangerous bio. We wouldn't find it acceptable for...

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.

Companion chatbots will be prohibited across all grades.

Sweeping bans of anything are hard to enact and enforce, but the risks of generative AI are too great to dismiss bold measures as unfeasible. [...] In the absence of a wholesale ban on all interactions between juveniles and relational AI, a default s...

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...

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...

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...

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.

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...