Expert opinions on Regulations

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 [...].

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...

to actually take my voice and use it to train something without my permission, I think that should be illegal.

If we create a new right to control training, that will not give creative workers control over AI training... It will give our bosses control over AI training, because they will amend our standard contracts to demand that we sign away our training ri...

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...

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.

Public input is critical to ensuring that powerful AI serves humanity’s interests.

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.

US export controls on frontier chips and SME to China have been a major contributor to the US’s overall lead in AI, and these policies need to be expanded, tightened, and coordinated with other likeminded states.

coerced or courted some countries to adopt export restrictions against China. [...] Such bullying acts seriously violate market principles and the international trade order

A good pause strategy would involve both sides being able to monitor the other's data centers to prevent illegal training, then limiting training to some slow mutually-agreeable rate that lets alignment researchers thoroughly test each generation of ...

This would be practically impossible, because the economic and national security stakes are simply too high for any superpower to willingly hit the brakes now. [...] Tracking decentralized computing resources, private data centers and algorithmic res...

My bill ensures a human is involved when deadly autonomous weapons are fired, AI cannot be used to spy on the American people, and that a human is on the switch to launch nuclear weapons.

When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. ...

Passing FISA 702 without strong new guardrails, while doing nothing to stop the government from buying Americans' location data and feeding it into AI systems to conduct unprecedented mass surveillance, would be shocking negligence.

When I was in justice, my ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. ...