Expert opinions on Regulations

For organizations to realize the full potential of agentic AI, they need to task agents with increasingly consequential responsibilities. But some actions must remain subject to human control, approval and accountability.

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.

If Anthropic was just one voice among many, this would not matter. But given its market-leading position and the risk that the industry develops as an oligopoly, society as a whole may wish to have some say over what is good for it. There are ways to...

If consciousness started to emerge in training, I would call for everyone to stop AI development until we could design out those properties.

Governments must assume their responsibilities. It is the first responsibility of any government to protect its citizens – including from the threats of artificial intelligence. National action is essential. But global coordination is also indispensa...

It's actually impossible to control it unless we think the entire world is going to sing kumbaya and say let's slow down, which as you said is unlikely. So if that's the case, fine. You put slowdown here maybe. Well, okay. Does it mean Japan slows do...

We can put these companies on notice that they’re going to be evaluated by folks that understand the process, that understand the technology, and will be transparent and hold them accountable so that they create safe products, and they don’t send out...

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.

When an OpenAI engineer sounded the alarm on the rapid pace of AI development, warning that this technology has the potential to have cataclysmic consequences, it wasn’t just deeply alarming—but a call to action. Critically, the 2026 International AI...

The FRONTIER Act is a targeted bill with clear, uniform transparency, and safety standards, instead of a fifty-state patchwork. I'm glad to support this bipartisan effort so that Congress acts before this technology outruns us.

Independent third-party AI auditors will act like financial accounting firms: investigating and verifying safety protocols and legal compliance. They’re a critical part of the safeguards needed around powerful frontier AI models.

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.

And as a first step, I suggest that interested parties and countries can come together to launch a pilot around AI incident reporting. We can start by agreeing on a common set of incident categories and information to be shared. We can explore how pa...

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...

I wish to speak in support of Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to which I have added my name. We heard during Committee not only about the out-of-control behaviour from agents running AI models from OpenAI, Google and Me...

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...

To maximize the effectiveness of such provisions, policymakers should define a sensible range of time frames to report incidents, possibly with a graduated approach according to the gravity of the harm.

External evaluators should be embedded at AI companies, but they should not be restricted to AI safety researchers, and they should not be selected by the company being evaluated. Rather, they should represent communities across society, address a mu...

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.

Unsolicited, AI-generated robocalls to voters’ cell phones — when both robocalls and AI have a proven track record of spreading lies and can be particularly deceiving when combined — aren’t just a nuisance; they’re downright dangerous for our democra...

We Must End AI-Powered Mass Surveillance, Not Switch Vendors. [...] ALPR’s don’t need a marketing rebrand – they need to be banned.

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.

A Global Call for AI Red Lines, launched at the UN General Assembly in September 2025, calls for categorical prohibitions on what an AI system may be built or used to do and presses governments to conclude a binding international agreement.

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.

Governments should be prohibited from using AI systems for mass surveillance. The right to privacy is a fundamental right we outline in our Declaration of Digital Rights. Data brokers and negligent data practices have allowed large amounts of persona...

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...

make provision about a requirement for consent to generate a likeness of a person using, or with the assistance of, artificial intelligence; to make further provision relating to that requirement; to make provision about civil action in circumstances...

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...

Dialog Lab does not generate, recommend, or support decisions involving any of the following: [...] Hiring decisions. Requests of this kind are declined, and users are redirected to the appropriate human review pathway.

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.