Dario Amodei

Many of the risks and worries associated with generative AI are ultimately consequences of this opacity, and would be much easier to address if the models were interpretable. [...] governments can use light-touch rules to encourage the development o... more Verified source

From a business perspective, the difference between open and closed is a little bit overblown. From a security perspective, the difference between open and closed models is, for some intents and purposes, overblown. The most important thing is how po... more Verified source (2025)

It is mortgaging our future as as a country to to sell these chips to China. Unverified source (2025)

I think we absolutely have to make the testing mandatory, but we also need to be really careful about how we do it. Unverified source (2024)

If AI creates huge total wealth, a lot of that will, by default, go to the AI companies and less to ordinary people. So, you know, it's definitely not in my economic interest to say that, but I think this is something we should consider and I think i... more Unverified source (2025)

We don't know if the models are conscious. We are not even sure that we know what it would mean for a model to be conscious or whether a model can be conscious. [...] But we're open to the idea that it could be. Unverified source (2026)

He also noted the standard should require AI developers to adopt policies for testing models and publicly disclose them [...] Unverified source (2026)

We need both a way to frequently monitor these emerging risks, and a protocol for responding appropriately when they occur. Autonomous AI systems that escape human control pose a significant threat to society. Unverified source (2023)

This means that in 2026-2027 we could end up in one of two starkly different worlds. In the US, multiple companies will definitely have the required millions of chips (at the cost of tens of billions of dollars). The question is whether China will al... more Unverified source (2025)

There's a 25% chance that the future of AI will go “really, really badly,” Unverified source (2025)

We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values. AI-driven mass surveillance presents serious, novel risks to our... more Unverified source (2026)

We support the use of AI for lawful foreign intelligence and counterintelligence missions. But using these systems for mass domestic surveillance is incompatible with democratic values. AI-driven mass surveillance presents serious, novel risks to our... more Unverified source (2026)

artificial intelligence companies, including his own, should be subject to mandatory testing requirements to ensure their technologies are safe for the public before release. Unverified source (2024)

Today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America’s warfighters and civilians at risk [...] fully autonomous weapons cannot be relied upon to exercis... more Verified source (2026)

The idea of stopping or even substantially slowing the technology is fundamentally untenable. If one company does not build it, others will do so nearly as fast. [...] Even if all Western companies stopped their work on AI, authoritarian countries wo... more Unverified source (2026)