OpenAI Former Employees Reveal NEW Details In Surprising Letter...

Summary

The California Senate Bill 1047, dubbed the 'Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act', has ignited debate within the AI industry. The bill seeks to regulate costly AI models, mandating safety assessments and compliance with audits. Critics fear it may stifle innovation and benefit large tech firms. Open AI whistleblowers argue for necessary regulation to prevent AI misuse, while others, including Open AI's CEO, warn it could hamper California's AI progress. The debate underscores the difficulty of regulating rapidly evolving technology and the urgent need for adaptable frameworks to ensure safety without stifling innovation.

Takeaways

• 📜 The California Senate Bill 1047, also known as the 'Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act', is a legislative proposal aiming to regulate advanced AI models for safety and ethical deployment.
• 💡 The bill specifically targets AI models that require substantial investment, costing over $100 million to train, and mandates developers to conduct safety assessments and comply with annual audits and safety standards.
• 🔍 A new regulatory oversight body, the 'Frontier Model Division' within the Department of Technology, would be responsible for ensuring compliance and could impose penalties for violations, including fines up to 30% of the model's development costs.
• 🤔 The bill has sparked controversy, with some arguing it's necessary for preventing potential AI harms, while critics fear it could stifle innovation and consolidate power among large tech companies.
• 🗣️ Critics, including tech companies and AI researchers, argue that the bill's focus on AI models rather than their applications could hinder innovation and place undue burdens on startups and open-source projects.
• 🔑 The language of the bill is considered vague, leading to concerns about compliance and liability for developers.
• 🗣️ Open AI's Chief Strategy Officer, Jason Quon, has expressed mixed views on AI regulation, acknowledging the need for regulation but also warning that SB 1047 could slow innovation and lead to a brain drain from California.
• 🚨 Open AI whistleblowers, including former employees, have expressed concerns about the safety of AI systems, stating that developing frontier models without adequate safety precautions poses foreseeable risks of catastrophic harm to the public.
• 📝 A letter from Open AI whistleblowers highlights the company's internal safety issues and premature deployment of AI systems, suggesting a lack of adherence to safety protocols.
• 🌐 Anthropic, in their letter, acknowledges the need for regulation and the challenges of keeping pace with rapidly advancing AI technology, suggesting the need for adaptable and transparent regulatory frameworks.
• 🛡️ The debate around SB 1047 underscores the broader issue of balancing innovation with safety and the difficulty of creating effective regulations in a fast-evolving field like AI.

Q & A

What is the California Senate Bill 1047?

California Senate Bill 1047, also known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act, is a legislative proposal aimed at regulating advanced AI models to ensure their safe development and deployment.

What are the key aspects of Senate Bill 1047?

The key aspects of SB 1047 include targeting AI models that require substantial investment, specifically those costing over $100 million to train. It mandates developers to conduct safety assessments, certify that their models do not enable hazardous capabilities, and comply with annual audits and safety standards.

What is the role of the new Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology?

The Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology would oversee the implementation of the regulations set by SB 1047. It is responsible for ensuring compliance and could impose penalties for violations, potentially up to 30% of the model's development costs.

Why is Senate Bill 1047 considered controversial?

Senate Bill 1047 is considered controversial because critics argue that it could stifle innovation and concentrate power among a few large tech companies. There are concerns about the bill's vague language, compliance, and liability for developers, and the potential for hindering innovation and placing undue burdens on startups and open source projects.

What are the concerns raised by open AI whistleblowers about the bill?

Open AI whistleblowers have raised concerns that developing frontier models without adequate safety precautions poses foreseeable risks of catastrophic harm to the public. They argue that the bill is necessary to prevent potential harms from advanced AI and that the rapid advances of AI technology necessitate regulation.

What is the stance of Open AI's Chief Strategy Officer, Jason Quan, on AI regulation?

Jason Quan, Open AI's Chief Strategy Officer, has stated that AI should be regulated and that commitment remains unchanged. However, he also expressed concerns that SB 1047 could threaten California's growth, slow the pace of innovation, and lead to a mass exodus of AI talent from the state.

What does the letter from Open AI whistleblowers highlight about the company's safety practices?

The letter from Open AI whistleblowers highlights concerns about the company's safety practices, stating that they joined Open AI to ensure the safety of powerful AI systems but resigned due to a loss of trust in the company's ability to deploy AI systems safely, honestly, and responsibly.

What are the key points from Anthropic's letter regarding SB 1047?

Anthropic's letter acknowledges the real and serious concerns with catastrophic risk in AI systems. It suggests that a regulatory framework that is adaptable to rapid change in the field is necessary and emphasizes the importance of transparent safety and security practices, incentives for effective safety plans, and public involvement in decisions around high-risk AI systems.

What is the main argument against the current approach to AI regulation as stated by Anthropic?

Anthropic argues that the current approach to AI regulation is not keeping pace with the rapid advancements in AI technology. They believe that regulation strategies need to be adaptable and that the field is evolving so quickly that traditional regulatory processes are not effective.

What does the video suggest about the future of AI regulation?

The video suggests that AI regulation is a complex and challenging issue. It implies that current regulatory efforts might not be sufficient to keep up with the rapid pace of AI development and that there might be a need for more adaptable and transparent regulatory frameworks. It also raises the possibility that a significant incident might be necessary to catalyze effective regulation.

Outlines

00:00

📜 California's AI Regulation Debate

The California Senate Bill 1047, also known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act, is a legislative proposal that seeks to regulate advanced AI models with a focus on safety in their development and deployment. The bill has sparked controversy within the AI industry due to its potential impact on innovation. It targets AI models costing over $100 million to train, mandating safety assessments, certification against hazardous capabilities, and compliance with annual audits and safety standards. Critics argue that the bill's vague language could stifle innovation and concentrate power among large tech companies, while supporters believe it is necessary to prevent potential harms from advanced AI. The bill also proposes the creation of a Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology to oversee compliance and impose penalties for violations.

05:00

🚨 Whistleblower Concerns on AI Safety

Whistleblowers from OpenAI have raised concerns about the safety and responsible deployment of AI systems, leading to their resignation from the company. They argue that developing frontier AI models without adequate safety precautions poses significant risks to the public. The whistleblowers are not alone in their concerns, as a consensus paper from 25 leading scientists also describes extreme risks from upcoming advanced AI systems. OpenAI's internal practices have been criticized for not aligning with their public safety stance, including premature deployment and security breaches. The whistleblowers advocate for public involvement in decisions around high-risk AI systems and support the provisions of SB 1047 that require transparency and protection for whistleblowers.

10:02

🤖 The Challenge of Regulating Rapidly Advancing AI

The rapid advancement of AI technology presents a significant challenge for regulation. While the need for regulation is urgent due to the potential risks AI systems pose, the field's fast pace makes it difficult to create effective and lasting regulatory frameworks. Companies like Anthropic recognize the need for adaptable regulation that can keep up with the rapid changes in AI. They propose a regulatory framework with transparent safety and security practices, incentives for effective safety plans, and accountability measures. The debate over SB 1047 reflects the broader struggle to balance innovation with the need for safety and accountability in AI development.

15:03

🛑 The Future of AI Regulation and Safety

The future of AI regulation is uncertain, with companies like OpenAI and Anthropic taking different stances on the proposed SB 1047. While Anthropic supports the need for regulation and the principles outlined in the bill, OpenAI has opposed it, raising questions about the strength of their commitment to safety. The fear of a mass exodus of AI developers from California due to strict regulations is seen as unfounded, with the belief that California remains the best place for AI research. The debate highlights the need for a careful balance between innovation and safety, with the recognition that regulation will likely lag behind development until a significant event prompts more stringent measures.

Keywords

💡California Senate Bill 1047

California Senate Bill 1047, also known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act, is a legislative proposal aimed at regulating advanced AI models to ensure their safe development and deployment. It is central to the video's theme as it represents the ongoing debate on AI regulation. The script discusses the bill's stipulations and the controversy surrounding it, including the potential impact on innovation and the concerns raised by industry figures and whistleblowers.

💡Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial Intelligence refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to think like humans and mimic their actions. In the context of the video, AI is the subject of regulatory discussion due to its rapid advancement and potential risks. The script highlights the need for safety assessments and the development of regulations to prevent potential harms from advanced AI systems.

💡Safety Assessments

Safety assessments are evaluations conducted to ensure that a product or system does not pose unreasonable risks. Within the video, it is mentioned that under the bill, developers are mandated to conduct safety assessments for AI models costing over $100 million to train, ensuring they do not enable hazardous capabilities. This concept is integral to the discussion on how to manage the risks associated with advanced AI.

💡Regulatory Oversight

Regulatory oversight refers to the supervision and enforcement of rules and regulations by a governing body. The video discusses the creation of a new Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology to oversee the implementation of AI regulations, ensuring compliance and imposing penalties for violations, which underscores the importance of governance in AI development.

💡Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers are individuals who reveal confidential information or activity within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority. The script mentions open AI whistleblowers who have voiced their concerns about the safety and responsible deployment of AI systems, highlighting the internal conflicts and the push for transparency and safety in AI development.

💡Innovation

Innovation refers to the process of translating an idea or invention into a good or service that creates value or for which customers will pay. The video script debates how the regulation of AI could potentially stifle innovation, concentrating power among large tech companies and placing undue burdens on startups and open-source projects, which is a key concern in the AI industry.

💡Compliance

Compliance refers to the act of conforming to a set of rules, regulations, or instructions. In the context of the video, compliance is a significant issue as the bill's vague language leads to concerns about how developers can adhere to the new regulations without clear guidelines, potentially impacting the development and deployment of AI models.

💡Anthropic

Anthropic is an AI research and deployment company that focuses on responsible AI development. In the script, statements from Anthropic are mentioned as part of the broader discussion on AI regulation, indicating the company's stance and the industry's varied perspectives on how to approach the governance of AI systems.

💡Open AI

Open AI is a research laboratory that develops AI technologies with the aim of ensuring that they benefit all of humanity. The video script discusses Open AI's stance on regulation, including internal conflicts and the differing opinions of its executives and former members, which is central to understanding the complexities of AI regulation and industry responses.

💡AGI (Artificial General Intelligence)

Artificial General Intelligence refers to an AI system that possesses the ability to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks at a level equal to or beyond that of a human. The script mentions the race to build AGI and the associated risks, emphasizing the urgency and importance of safety measures in AI development.

💡Public Involvement

Public involvement refers to the process of engaging the public in decision-making processes. The video script discusses the need for public involvement in decisions around high-risk AI systems, such as through the publication of safety and security protocols, which is crucial for transparency and accountability in AI regulation.

Highlights

California Senate Bill 1047, also known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act, aims to regulate advanced AI models to ensure their safe development and deployment.

The bill has sparked controversy in the AI industry due to its potential impact on the future of AI, with differing opinions from companies like Anthropic and OpenAI.

SB 1047 targets AI models requiring substantial investment, specifically those costing over $100 million to train, mandating safety assessments and compliance with annual audits and safety standards.

A new Frontier Model Division within the Department of Technology would oversee the implementation of these regulations, ensuring compliance and imposing penalties for violations.

Critics argue that the bill's vague language could lead to concerns about compliance and liability, potentially stifling innovation and concentrating power among large tech companies.

OpenAI whistleblowers have expressed their reasoning for opposing the bill, fearing it could slow innovation and lead to a consolidation of AI development power.

OpenAI's Chief Strategy Officer, Jason Quon, has made contrasting statements about the need for AI regulation, reflecting internal debate on the issue.

Sam Altman, OpenAI's CEO, has previously called for AI regulation but now opposes the bill, raising questions about the strength of OpenAI's commitments to safety.

The letter from OpenAI whistleblowers, William Saunders and Daniel Kokoale, highlights their safety concerns and reasons for resigning from OpenAI.

The whistleblowers argue that developing frontier models without adequate safety precautions poses foreseeable risks of catastrophic harm to the public.

Science published a consensus paper from 25 leading scientists describing extreme risks from upcoming advanced AI systems, indicating a growing concern in the scientific community.

The whistleblowers claim that OpenAI has not safely deployed their systems in the past, citing examples of premature deployment and security breaches.

Prominent safety researchers have left OpenAI, citing concerns about the company's approach to safety and the prioritization of products over safety culture.

SB 1047 requires publishing a Safety and Security protocol to inform the public about safety standards and protects whistleblowers who raise concerns.

Anthropic's letter acknowledges the need for regulation but suggests that SB 1047 may not be the most effective approach, proposing adaptable regulation as a better solution.

The letter from Anthropic emphasizes the importance of transparent safety and security practices and incentives to make safety plans effective in preventing catastrophes.

Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, stresses the importance of having appropriate regulations in place to ensure the safe development of increasingly powerful AI systems.

The debate over SB 1047 reflects the broader challenges of regulating AI, including the rapid pace of development and the need for adaptable regulatory frameworks.

Transcripts

the California Senate Bill

1047 known as the safe and secure

Innovation for Frontier artificial

intelligence systems Act is a

legislative proposal aimed at regulating

Advanced AI models to ensure their safe

development and deployment now this has

been one of the most controversial

pieces of discussion going around the AI

industry and that's because there are

many different things that could really

impact the future of AI including

statements from anthropic a few open AI

whistleblowers and key industry figures

so in this video I'm going to dive into

all the key aspects and then we're going

to dive into why this is such a

contentious issue so the key aspects of

sb147 are as fodel the bill targets air

models that require substantial

investment specifically those costing

over $100 million to train it mandates

developers to conduct safety assessments

certify that their models do not enable

hazardous capabilities and comply with

annual Audits and safety standards

there's also regulatory oversight a new

frontier model division within the

department of Technology would oversee

the implementation of these regulations

this division would be responsible for

ensuring compliance and could impose

penalties for violation potentially up

to 30% of the model's development costs

now some individuals have argued that

bills like this AR necessary to prevent

potential harms from Advanced AI while

critics are claiming that this could

stifle innovation and concentrate power

among a few large tech companies the

Bill's language is considered vague

leading to concerns about compliance and

liability for developers and many

critics including many tech companies

and AI researchers argue that the bills

focus on the AI models themselves rather

than their applications could hinder

Innovation and place undue burdens on

startups and open source projects they

fear it could lead to a consolidation of

air development power and slow down

progress in California now today there

was a from open AI whistleblowers in

which they explain their reasoning for

their position on this letter and their

positioning is driven by open ai's

recent statements surrounding the letter

you can see that the Twitter control AI

a Twitter account that is focused on

controlling Ai and an organization

that's focused on the safety aspects

tweets this open ai's Chief strategy

Officer Jason Quon last week said that

we've always believed that AI should be

regulated and that commitment remains

unchanged however this week his

statements were quite different he says

that the AI Revolution is just the

beginning in California's unique status

of the global leader in AI is fueling

the state's economic dynamism sb147

would threaten that growth slow the pace

of innovation and Lead California's

world-class engineers and entrepreneurs

to leave the state in search of Greater

opportunity elsewhere and interestingly

enough Sam mman has clearly stated that

we do need air regulation and this is

him talking in October of 2020 about how

these systems should be regulated you

know there's kind of a cohort in silic

and Valley that's very worried about

what AI could do to manate does that

concern you at all for sure um I think

it's going to be fine um I also think

it's like very bad thinking to not take

the apocalyptic downside very seriously

I am more optimistic than I used to be

that we can get through this I think

just saying like oh don't worry about it

it's going to be fine is a very bad

strategy I'm like super proud of the

safety team and the policy team that we

have at open Ai and there's like very

good technical work to do we're doing

some of it others are doing some we

should probably all do more about how

how we build these systems in a way

where they're very humanized you know

how can we have some sort of you know

way for people to feel confident that

technical experts are taking those

necessary safety kind of given the

consequences of potential mistakes or do

you think you know people should be able

to just trust no I don't I think there

has to be government and we're trying to

push for this as as much as we can yeah

and how so far have you found the the

interplay between governments and I do

you work with government regularly you

know is there any sort of regulatory

things you face or how does that we do

Rel there's not much regulatory stuff

yet on AI I'm I'm pretty sure there will

be regulation in the non distant future

I really think there should be I want to

show you guys some key parts of this

letter because there are some parts that

need to be brought to your attention as

you may know the people that wrote this

letter William sworders and Daniel

kokalo were people that actually worked

at openai and left due to safety

concerns this letter was released today

you can see it's August 22nd 2024 and

the letter starts by stting the open AI

and other companies are racing to build

artificial general intelligence or AI

systems that are generally smarter than

humans and in its right open's mission

statement and the company is Raising

billions of dollars to achieve this goal

and along the way they create systems

that pose a risk of critical harms to

society such as unprecedented cyber

attacks or assisting in the creation of

biological weapons and if they succeed

entirely artificial general intelligence

will be the most powerful technology

ever invented I'm going to highlight

that because that is a clear statement

that most people truly haven't grasped

yet now you can see here that they said

we joined openai because we wanted to

ensure the safety of incredibly powerful

AI systems that the company is

developing but we but we resigned from

openi because we lost trust that it

would safely honestly and responsibly

deploy its AI systems in light of that

we are not surprised by open ai's

decision to Lobby against SB 1047 it

clearly states here that developing

Frontier models without adequate safety

precautions poses foreseeable risks of

catastrophic harm to the public we are

not the only ones concerned about the

rapid advances of AI technology and

earlier this year science published

managing extreme AI risks amid rapid

progress a consensus paper from 25

leading scientists describing extreme

risks from upcoming Advanced AI systems

and Sam Alman agreed he stated that the

worst case scenario for AI could be

lights out for all of us so this

statement right here is actually quite

true samman has stated on multiple

different occasions dangerous these AI

systems could be and the kind of things

that could happen and every time I hear

these individuals talk about the safety

precautions of open aai I do truly

wonder how powerful the systems that

they do have are and if the current

preparedness framework that they're

currently using in order to deploy model

safely is actually going to be something

that they stick by considering the fact

that we are now in these terminal race

conditions in which companies are forced

to outdo one another in order to gain

customer satisfaction you can see right

here there are some key issues to where

they describe how open AI has previously

not safely deployed their system it says

in the absence of whistleblower

protections openai demanded we sign away

our rights to ever criticize the company

under threat of losing millions of

dollars invested Equity when we resigned

for the company touting cautious and

gradual deployment practices gbt 4 was

deployed prematurely in India in direct

violation of open ai's internal safety

procedures and more famously openai

provided technology to Bing's chatbot

which then threatened an attempted to

manipulate users and openi claimed to

have strict internal security controls

despite a major security breach and

other internal security concerns the

company also fired a colleague in part

about raising concerns about their

security practices that of course is

referring to Leopold Ashen brener now

you can see right here they also spoke

about how prominent safety researchers

have left the company including

cofounders the head of Team responsible

for controlling smarter than human AI

systems said on resignation that the

company was long overdue getting

incredibly serious about the

implications of AGI and that safety

culture has taken a backseat to shiny

products while these incidents did not

cause catastrophic harms that's only

because truly dangerous systems have not

yet been built not because companies

have safety processes that could truly

handle dangerous system we believe that

there should be public involvement in

decisions around highrisk AI systems and

SB creates a space for this to happen it

requires publishing a Safety and

Security protocol to inform the public

about safety standards and it protects

whistleblowers who raise concerns to the

California attorney general if a model

possesses an unreasonable risk or

causing or capable of causing or

enabling critical harm it says it

provides a possibility for consequences

for companies if they mislead the public

and doing so lead to harm or imminent

threat to Public Safety and extracts a

careful balance that protects legitimate

IP interests now what's interesting

about this is that they say here that

open ai's complaints about s SP 1047 are

not constructive and don't seem to be in

good faith they state that open AI they

don't protect whistleblowers and they do

nothing to prevent a company from

releasing a product that would

foreseeably cause catastrophic harm to

the public and it's perfectly clear that

they are not a substitute for S SP 1047

as open AI knows as much so basically

what they're stating right here is that

currently in the AI space we are waiting

for a disaster to happen I know many

people think that the AI debate is one

that is just pointless but I mean these

guys do actually genuinely have a point

about this companies have completely

disregarded safety precautions in order

to get products into users hands as

quick as possible and now with the

future Cycles ahead of us we know that

systems are going to be a lot more

smarter a lot more capable and thus a

lot more dangerous if this is true

looking historically at how companies

have acted in the past can we not see

how releasing a product that would

foreseeably cause catastrophic harm

could could be possible in the near to

short-term future and I think this is

you know plausible it does say that we

cannot wait for Kress to act they've

explicitly said that they aren't willing

to pass meaningful AI regulation and if

they ever do it can preempt California

it can preempt C regulation an anthropic

join sensible observers when it worries

congressional action will not occur in

the necessary window of time they

basically State here that SB 1047

requirements are things that AI

developers including open AI have

already largely agreed to involuntary

commitments to the White House and S the

main difference is that s SP 1047 would

force developers to show the public that

they're keeping those commitments and

hold them accountable if they don't now

of course this is where they talk about

the fear of mass of Exodus of AI

developers and it says the fears of a

mass of Exodus of AI developers from the

state are contri opening ey said the

same thing about the EU AI act but it

didn't happen California is the best

place in the world to do AI research and

what's more the Bill's requirements

would apply to anyone doing business in

CA regardless of their location and it's

extremely disappointing to see our

former employer pursue Scare Tactics to

derail AI safety legislation and here's

the main point from all of this they

state that Sam Alman our former boss has

repeatedly called for a regulation now

when actual regulation is on the table

he opposes it and he said that

previously obviously they would support

all regulation but yet openai opposes

the even extremely light touch

requirements in SB 1047 most of which

they claim they voluntarily commit to

raising the questions the strengths of

those commit like I said before this

letter was written by William Saunders

and of course Daniel kotalo former open

aai member of policy star so this is

something that is rather surprising

considering the fact that open AI have

consistently shown their position when

it comes to regulations surrounding AI

because they've seemingly been rather

supportive however maybe when it's

actually coming to it right now for

whatever reason they're on the fence now

interestingly enough open AI former

members are not the only people that

have written about this letter and the

issues that this kind of poses to the

area here we can see anthropics letter

that was written just yesterday it does

say a few things and some of these that

I want to bring to your attention are

pretty incredible so you can see right

here it says pros and cons of s SP 1047

it says we want to be clear as we were

in our original Saia letter that s SP

1047 addresses real and serious concerns

with catastrophic risk in AI system AI

systems advancing today are gaining

capability ities extremely quickly which

offer both great promise for

California's economy and substantial

risk and our work and this is where it

gets interesting is that our work with

biod defense experts cyber experts and

others shows a trend for the potential

for serious misuse in the coming years

perhaps as little as 1 to three years

that's a crazy statement but when you

think about the pace of AI development

don't think that this isn't a

possibility and here's some of the key

things about this paper just the bits

that you might want to pay attention to

2 where it says here are some thoughts

about regulating Frontier AI system

regardless or whether or not SB 1047 is

adopted California will be grappling

with how to regulate AI technology for

years to come and it says below we share

our general perspective on AI regulation

which we hope may be useful considering

both s SP 107 and future regulatory

efforts might occur instead or in

addition to it so basically they're

stating some of the problems here that

most regulatory pieces fail to address

and one of the key issues that I've seen

before is of course that you know a

regulation is driven by the speed of

progress regulating things usually does

take time you've got different bills

that you have to pass you've got like

all these committees and you know

honestly just government nonsense which

is really slow but I completely

understand why it needs to go through so

many different areas before bill is

passed but the point here is that this

doesn't work well with AI because AI is

just advancing extremely rapidly so it

says here that on one hand this means

that regulation is urgently needed on

some issues we believe that these

technologies will present present

serious risk to the public in the near

future and on the other hand because the

field is advancing so quickly strategies

for mitigating risk are in a state of

Rapid Evolution often resembling

scientific research problems more than

they resemble established best practices

and we believe that this is genuinely

one of the most difficult dilemas and

it's an important driver of the

Divergence in views among different

experts on

sb147 and in general and it's rightly

said trying to regulate something that

changes literally every 12 months is you

know insane like it's just so hard to do

that and one resolution to this dilemma

which they've spoken about is very

adaptable regulation in grappling with

the Dilemma above we've come to the view

that the best solution is to have a

regulatory framework that is very

adaptable to Rapid change in the field

which does make sense it says in terms

of specific properties of an AI Frontier

Model regulatory framework we see three

key elements as essential transparent

Safety and Security practices at present

many AI companies consider it necessary

to have detailed Safety and Security

plans for managing AI catastrophic risk

but the public and lawmakers have no way

to verify adherence to these plans or

the outcome of any test run as a part of

them basically what they're stating here

is that look these guys always sayate

that okay we're going to test if these

models pass a certain threshold and if

it passes a certain threshold we're

never going to release the model but how

do we know what is going on internally

if they don't release these findings to

anyone they could simply release models

that are completely dangerous if they

haven't tested them in certain ways

trans transparency in this area would

create public accountability accelerate

industry learning and promote a race to

the top with very few downsides and

thropic also talks about incentives to

make Safety and Security plans effective

in preventing catastrophe basically what

they're stating here is that look you

can prescribe rules all day but the main

thing that you need to do is incentivize

the right outcome this is you know how

humans are driven if you incentivize

someone with the right thing they're

always going to do what you want them to

do you can see here it says we believe

it is critical to have some some

framework for managing Frontier AI

systems that roughly meets these

requirements and as AI systems become

more powerful it's crucial for us to

ensure we have appropriate regulations

in place to ensure their safely

sincerely Dario amod CEO of anthropic so

overall what we have here is a

comprehensive view of where companies

stand it's clear that anthropic does

want regulation but understands that

even the current regulation if it's

proposed isn't going to do what it needs

to and open AI seem to be edging towards

not regulating their systems

surprisingly considering their recent

position regarding regulating AI system

either way I do want to know if this

legislation is going to be accepted or

not it seems to be rather interesting

where everyone stands regulating AI is

most certainly hard let me know what you

guys think about air regulation do you

think it makes sense do you think things

like this are going to work and if you

guys do want to know about open ai's

method of their safety this is their

preparedness framework Beta And

basically they do have an updated one

but I can't find it but the long story

short is that you know if models reach a

certain level they're basically saying

they won't release them which is why

I've said that you know um and the model

basically if it gets high or critical on

certain evaluations they're not going to

release them which is why I've said that

before I don't think we're going to get

Frontier models in certain areas because

it's going to be pretty hard um to to do

that whilst increasing the knowledge of

the model so you've got cyber security

you know um this one is biological and

other threats this one is persuasion and

this is models autonomy so this is

basically atic Behavior to go off and do

stuff that's pretty insane so um I

personally do believe that what we're

walking into is you know a gray area

because regulation is pretty difficult

but here's what I think is going to

happen I think that you know regulation

will lag behind a development and

somewhere somehow something's going to

happen and whenever it does happen it's

probably going to then force a

regulation like usually what happens is

in spaces that are pretty Innovative

since regulation can't keep up with

what's going on and Frameworks like this

might not always be effective

unfortunately we're probably going to

have to wait for something bad to happen

and then once it bad happens we then put

in regulation to prevent that regulation

from happening again for example if we

look at the TSA the tragedies that

happened in America how it completely

changed air travel things like that I do

think unfortunately we're probably going

to have to see another scenario like

that I do hope that that isn't the case

I would much rather regulation just

allows these companies to also innovate

and also not share their secrets because

I think that's the main thing that

they're scared of but I guess we'll have

to see