Expert opinions on Law

It seems likely that the answer looks more like setting standards for other businesses while ensuring courts and attorneys general hold AI businesses liable for foreseeable uses of their technology—including enforcing existing laws about hacking and ...

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.

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.”

The only way to ultimately control AI on a worldwide scale in coming years will be for the two superpowers to create some kind of framework modeled after how we've safely governed nuclear weapons for decades.

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 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.

The bills include the AI OVERWATCH Act, the Chip Security Act, and the MATCH Act. Anthropic supports all three bills and is ending its membership in ITI over the group's efforts to block them from passing.

Our membership is aligned that these bills undermine the American tech stack, and as our Thursday letter demonstrates, there is widespread support for this position across the technology and broader business sectors.

Flock cameras have no place in Texas.

This has effectively given police a very long leash to experiment with these technologies. And now we're in a tipping point situation where it's about to be expanded all over the country, and there's a real necessity for those legal frameworks to be ...

We ask them to work with the communities using this technology to decide what rules should govern it and not to spread misinformation or ban a critical public safety tool outright that is helping to make communities safer.

Instead we want to be in a situation where if both sides want a deal, then they can prove to each other that they’re complying with the deal. You want to be in a situation where the Chinese government at least knows where all the Chinese chips are, a...

SIA members are fully committed to complying with export controls, and we strongly oppose the illicit diversion and misuse of our chip technologies. While we understand policymakers’ interest in addressing this issue, we cannot support blanket mandat...

We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.

The use of live facial recognition in our public spaces is an extraordinary expansion of state power that currently exists in a legal vacuum. We are not Luddites on these Benches; we recognise the utility of technology, but we must ensure that live f...

I have grave concerns that banning technology until it is legislated will choke innovation, it will drive genuine use cases away, and as technology is always developing, are we not in danger of ‘tomorrow never comes’ when it comes to legislation keep...

About 1,400 citizens applied, and we randomly selected 200 of them to participate as members of the evaluation panel. [...] Ultimately, 185 citizens participated.

Generative AI has made it easier than ever to create convincing deepfakes and other deceptive content, and we’re already seeing these tactics used to influence America’s elections. Meta, headquartered in my district, has rolled back key safeguards ov...

I don't believe AI in ads is a problem. The issue is restating false information.

The Federal Communications Commission initiated this proceeding to protect consumer from unwanted AI-generated calls while ensuring that our rules do not hinder the potential benefits that AI can offer, including making telecommunications more readil...

AI is driving power asymmetries between countries, governments, corporations, and individuals. Between countries, control over key parts of the AI value chain—frontier models, advanced chips and data centers—by a few companies creates dependency risk...

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...

Thanks to copyright restrictions that criminalize modifying apps without permission, there is no legal way for either drivers or riders to build comparison-shopping dashboards that bid out the same worker or job to multiple apps and choose from the c...

Here in Washington and elsewhere, policymakers are taking steps, in the name of competition, that would force Apple to let apps onto iPhone that circumvent the App Store through a process called sideloading. That means data-hungry companies would be ...