Expert opinions on Policy

The first is the danger that AI becomes so capable that humans lose control of it. This is the existential-risk scenario that dominates Silicon Valley’s safety debate. The ultimate threat is not China, the US or any particular lab. Rather, it is an a...

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.

Building safe and reliable AI will require global regulation in the sense of model testing and evaluation.

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.

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.

Developers should not be the sole judges of the systems they build. It’s like asking students to grade their own homework. Independent evaluations, conducted by government or qualified third parties, should be a standard part of the AI ecosystem.

You’ll see industry oppose outside auditors and the main reason is they would mandate something that can’t be done [today] in a robust and uniform manner.

At the same time, the rapid development of frontier AI models poses serious risks to safety and security if not appropriately managed. [...] We therefore welcome the recently launched initiatives that aim to manage the risks related to frontier techn...

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...

Amodei’s best idea is to give outside evaluators employee-level access to the labs. That only works if the evaluators answer to the public.

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.

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.

With AI, although potential compensatory mechanisms such as new tasks and productivity gains are promised, history cautions us that such benefits are neither automatic nor equitably shared. [...] Prominent tax scholars have argued that a new, targete...

To date, BPC has not taken a position on whether AI should be taxed and does not endorse any particular option in this issue brief. [...] The code treats labor and capital differently: Employers owe payroll taxes on wages, while investments in equipm...

The proposals differ in detail, but they cite the same story: Labor’s share of national income has declined, and AI is accelerating workers’ losses by shifting more economic activity to capital. The tax code makes all of this worse by undertaxing cap...

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.

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.

As the frontier models become more capable, these risks have come more sharply into focus. Models being developed will allow hacking on a level we never thought possible. And they will soon be in the hands of adversaries who see the world very differ...

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.

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.”

Today, the companies are being built elsewhere. Last year the United States produced 59 notable AI models and China produced 35. France and the United Kingdom produced one each. Along the rest of the AI value chain, the picture is the same: the Unite...

Europe should prioritize “code over concrete.”