Expert opinions on Policy

There's much more to do, including giving CAISI the authority to create the standards we need to know whether a frontier model is safe before it ships, not after something goes wrong.

However, it is important to differentiate regulating applications (which we need) vs. regulating the technology (which is ill-advised).

Under the status quo, AI systems are considered tools and the companies creating them are on the hook. This rightfully keeps humans accountable.

SB-1047 holds liable [...] the original developer of that model. It is impossible [...] to predict every possible use. SB-1047 will force developers to pull back [...].

AI personhood isn't about recognizing AI as morally equivalent to humans. It's about recognizing that AI is functionally equivalent to corporations — powerful, consequential, and too complex to be managed through old legal frameworks.

This Constitution recognizes three categories of constitutional persons: Operators, Agents, and Affected Parties. Each has distinct rights and obligations that together form a governance ecosystem. The Operator deploys and configures; the Agent acts ...

Under the status quo, AI systems are considered tools and the companies creating them are on the hook. This rightfully keeps humans accountable.

Artificial intelligence is moving quickly, and Congress has a responsibility to meet this moment. My Protecting Consumers From Deceptive AI Act will help protect creators and creative work and ensure Americans know when they are viewing or interactin...

A media environment with more false and deceptive information is not a good thing for our society, but it is not the government's job to fix it. [...] Let's trust the American people, not the government, to decide for themselves how AI should be used...

I know there’s a lot of concern that many people have, including many smart people, that AI is going to make humans redundant and so on. I totally disagree with this point of view. And I think, in fact, AI is going to create a labor shortage.

the evidence on how AI is affecting the labor market today is inconclusive, and claims about harmful impacts on particular groups of workers are premature.

The financing for new models is coming from investors, and those investors are making a bet that the AI they're funding will be so good that employers can fire half their workers and replace them with AI, with the proceeds split between AI companies'...

This sentiment of renting AI from someone rather than owning it is a national security risk [...] You need to fully control it.

Governments are on track to spend more than $1 trillion by 2030 chasing a sovereign stack, the full range of hardware and capabilities necessary to deploy and operate AI infrastructure. [...] In an interdependent system, the question shifts from how ...

No one should have their voice, image, or likeness stolen and used in a fake video or AI-generated deepfake without their consent.

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...

One of the controversial things we did with Signal early on was to build it as an unfederated service. Nothing about any of the protocols we’ve developed requires centralization; it’s entirely possible to build a federated Signal Protocol‑based messe...

And by the way, there's the existential threat that as AI becomes smarter than humans, it can [...] become independent and lead to catastrophic impacts.

So when people predict a high degree of existential risk from AGI, I don’t actually think “arguing back” on their chosen terms is the correct response. Radical agnosticism is the correct response, where all specific scenarios are pretty unlikely. Non...

These fears (or hopes) of a nascent superintelligence that will spontaneously arise if we just give enough computing power and training data to large language models are absurd on their face.

To begin, we should formalize international norms for military and civilian uses of AI to regulate areas where full human control over the technology is essential. The Responsible Artificial Intelligence Defense Act is a practical first step toward e...

Personal view: I admire @AnthropicAI sticking by their principles but disagree with the principle itself. Putin won't fight fair so we should have autonomous AI weapons for sure.

Risk profiling in migration, social security fraud detection and crime control must be banned. Predictive profiling and risk assessment systems, whether data driven or rules-based, should be banned in high stakes contexts even when humans make the fi...

That’s not to say that police departments shouldn’t use software to analyze their data. [...] Further development of the technology is inevitable, so local governments and police departments should develop appropriate standards and practices. [...] P...

Good AI policy requires independent verification of safety. AB 1405 will take a significant step in creating the ecosystem for independent verification to become a reality. By working in concert with Sen. McNerney we are building a framework where Ca...

Finally, it’s not clear how well some of the act’s provisions reflect the current state of the AI ecosystem. The act demands that labs hire an independent third party to complete an annual audit of their protocols to ensure compliance with the act. T...

I'm somebody that believes that there always must be a human involved in the kill chain, and that we should not be making decisions to take lives based on an AI algorithm. We need to be able to make those decisions as humans, and those are discussion...

Personal view: I admire @AnthropicAI sticking by their principles but disagree with the principle itself. Putin won't fight fair so we should have autonomous AI weapons for sure.

While we would applaud any serious effort to regulate potentially dangerous AI technologies, any attempt to tie the hands of states in their efforts to keep working people safe is not acceptable. We oppose preemption of state authority to regulate th...

America should lead the world in artificial intelligence, not regulate ourselves into falling behind China through a patchwork of fifty different state laws.

The simplest form of treaty would be something like this, that the countries agree that if they do develop advanced AI: * That it will be done in a safe way. So maybe using techniques like Scientist AI or whatever else we have strong assurances for. ...

If somebody says, 'This technology is so powerful that we need a global treaty to slow it down,' then I would say: Then take your foot off the accelerator yourself if you think it's moving too fast.