Max Tegmark

Basically no AI personhood is one of the most important principles because if we grant AI personhood, it's game over for humanity.

95% of Americans don’t want a race to superintelligence, and experts want to ban it.

Our safety and basic rights must not be at the mercy of a company's internal policy; lawmakers must work to codify these overwhelmingly popular red lines into law.

I'm not talking about a pause on AI at all. I'm just talking about a pause on AI girlfriends for 12-year-olds, AI that can teach terrorists to make bioweapons and other products that are clearly more harmful than beneficial for Canadians.

The simple way to view this is that all of the diverse applications of AI simply have this same approach that we have in all other powerful industries, that it's the company's job to innovate and demonstrate to independent, government-appointed exper...

Many believe it’s impossible. Just like it’s impossible for chimpanzees to control us. So most likely if we build superintelligence, its the end of the era where humans are in charge of Earth.

Sadly, I now feel that we’re living the movie “Don’t look up” for another existential threat: unaligned superintelligence. [...] We need more time. [...] Just look up!

Fully autonomous weapons systems and Orwellian AI-enabled domestic mass surveillance are affronts to our dignity and liberty. [...] Domestic mass surveillance of US citizens is a red line that should never be crossed. [...] Our safety and basic right...

Fully autonomous weapons systems and Orwellian AI-enabled domestic mass surveillance are affronts to our dignity and liberty. [...] Domestic mass surveillance of US citizens is a red line that should never be crossed. [...] Our safety and basic right...

There are some digital products (say CSAM and AI letting terrorists make bioweapons) that I oppose regardless of whether they are open-source or not, but I'm overall supportive of open source, and you can easily verify that my MIT research group defa...

[The lawsuits against AI chatbots] could spur concrete guardrails — such as requiring companies to test models for specific harms before deployment. [...] [The cases could break] the taboo that AI must always be unregulated.

You never have to worry that some drug company is going to release some other drug that causes massive harm before people have figured out how to make it safe, because the FDA won't allow them to release anything until it's safe enough. [...] In the ...

All AI systems should be under meaningful human control. This is especially true for those that could be used in the taking of human lives. Moreover, current AI systems are inherently unpredictable and fundamentally brittle, unsuited for very high st...