Expert opinions on Regulations

AI safety won't be solved by any single company working in secret. It will be solved in the open, collaboratively, with broad access to AI for every defender, everywhere.

The time has come for a more systematic approach to AI regulation — funded by the industry, staffed by world-class technical experts, and answerable to the U.S. government.

Congress commends the FCC for adopting a declaratory ruling effectively banning the use of AI-generated robocalls, but remains concerned that rapidly developing AI technology is becoming dangerously harder to detect.

It’s a catch-it-early and sound-the-alarm bill.

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...

Require Location Verification for Advanced AI Chips: The Department of Commerce must work to ensure America’s most advanced AI chips are not diverted to unauthorized regions and end up in the hands of our adversaries—especially those fueling military...

Enacting the current draft of the Chip Security Act (CSA) would erode trust and endanger the Administration’s vision to diffuse U.S. AI technology. Specifically, burdensome rules on U.S. companies not required for foreign competitors risk incentivizi...

I echo their calls in the amendments they have tabled today, particularly about the need for last-resort powers in relation to data centres, but also for a national conversation about these issues.

In that situation, the concept of a kill switch is meaningless.

None of this replaces human review for the decisions that warrant it.

Industry discourse often presents “Human-in-the-Loop” as the ultimate safeguard for AI deployment, yet this is a dangerous fallacy in high-velocity agentic systems.

Capability testing must be the primary input for open-release decisions because open-weight mitigation remains unreliable, and labs and governments must identify models that are too dangerous for unrestricted release.

However, the solution here is absolutely not to restrict open model development in the name of security—cyber, national, or otherwise.

AI governance must be overseen by randomly selected citizen councils (Human Firewall) rather than corporations or governments.

Developers publish broad, top-level safety and ethics frameworks that sound reassuring, but are publishing limited empirical evidence needed to actually understand the risks.

The draft implementing regulation should clearly differentiate between API access, which should be the preferred method for safety evaluations where access to documents and relevant information are deemed insufficient, and “further” means of access, ...

The future of AI and democracy should not be left only to engineers, companies, or governments. It must be shaped through democratic debate, legal accountability, public participation, and strong protection of fundamental rights.

Second, companies developing the most capable systems should meet clear requirements, including independent audits, incident reporting, strong security standards, and whistleblower protections.

Timelines for incident reports are often set with well-intentioned urgency, but if they implicitly assume that root-cause analysis or full impact assessment has already been conducted, they will either produce premature and unreliable reports or plac...

I appreciate the intent behind the amendments and the shadow Minister’s position of understanding but not supporting them, which I share.

The NO FAKES Act advances both of those goals. By protecting individuals from the unauthorized use of their voices, images, and likenesses, the bill helps ensure that Americans retain meaningful control over their identities and creative contribution...

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...

Congress should enact legislation that bans the sale of cutting-edge AI chips to foreign adversaries and imposes stringent restrictions on less advanced yet still powerful semiconductors.

They would have to limit everything.

If the target was identified and missiles fired without any human involvement, who are the individuals to be held to account? The software engineers who developed the code?

The Government strongly believes that there is a need to maintain meaningful human control of all weapons systems, including any systems that may be developed. Our position is that, for such systems to comply with international humanitarian law, cont...

Closing it requires redesigning Army doctrine, organizations, and training to integrate LAWS into targeting under lawful human-on-the-loop control.

It is not enough to invoke ethics in the abstract; robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility are required.

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.