Richard Blumenthal

Sensible safeguards are not in opposition to innovation. Accountability is not a burden far from it. They are the foundation of how we can move ahead while protecting public trust. They are how we can lead the world in technology and science, but also in promoting our democratic values. We can start with transparency. AI companies ought to be required to test their systems, disclose known risks, and allow independent researcher access. We can establish scorecards and nutrition labels to encourage competition based on safety and trustworthiness, limitations on use. (2023) source Unverified

On the issue of open source, you each raised the security and safety risk of AI models that are open source or are leaked to the public, the danger. There are some advantages to having open source, as well. It's a complicated issue. I appreciate that open source can be an extraordinary resource. But even in the short time that we've had some AI tools and they've been available, they have been abused. For example, I'm aware that a group of people took Stable Diffusion and created a version for the express purpose of creating nonconsensual sexual material. So, on the one hand, access to AI data is a good thing for research, but on the other hand, the same open models can create risks, just because they are open. And I think the comparison is apt. You know, I've been reading the most recent biography of Robert Oppenheimer, and every time I think about AI, the specter of quantum physics, nuclear bombs, but also atomic energy, both peaceful and military purposes, is inescapable. (2023) source Unverified