AI Regulation and Safety Perspectives

We've heard from some of these, um, y- I think people call them AI

accelerationists

recently, and to be, to be frank, they feel betrayed.

They feel like OpenAI is basically copying Anthropic, uh,

and its

CEO, Dario Amodei, in its push for very aggressive

regulations on AI.

Can I just ask, you know, where do you specifically diverge from

Anthropic and its

pro-regulation, uh, CEO, uh, Dario-

Yeah

... when it comes to new AI rules? Um, where's, where's the daylight?

I think there's a lot of

daylight. Um, w- we have always been

a big believer that this technology has to be democratized and put in people's

hands. Uh, I think one of the biggest differences

between us and some of the

stricter, let's say, AI safety people, is we believe that the world should

accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people

having the agency. So, like, you know, I,

I disagree, but I understand the perspective of people

who are like, "This

technology's gonna get so powerful, and it's so dangerous, that a single lab

in San Francisco should have it and make sure nothing bad happens

and kind of

figure out how to dole out the benefits." I think that is a completely unacceptable

trade-off from a perspective of liberty and human agency and people

self-determining the future. But I understand where it comes from,

and I do think the lighter touch

regulatory stance that we advocate for comes with an

accepting

of the fact that some bad things are gonna happen as society figures out

the

resilience. So I wouldn't take a trade of saying,

like, "We'll make sure there's no

major hacks, there's no kind of like misuse of this

technology, there's zero

scams, there's zero all the other bad things

that will happen," um, because

I think people will do tremendously, orders of magnitude, more good

stuff than bad stuff.

But when it comes to

the potential of, like, a serious loss of control to AI,

and this is not a today

worry, but it may not be in the distant future,

um, this is where I would say to the

accelerationists, like,

"Let's be a little thoughtful about

lurching into this future." Um, so I would say accept

bounded risks, accept risks that we understand in exchange for the

benefits and,

um,

liberty, agency, all those things I was just talking about, but don't accept,

like,

the really catastrophic risk.

Yeah. And just to be clear, you mentioned a single lab in San

Francisco controlling

all of this technology. Um, that sounds a lot like the folks who say

Anthropic is

making a play to basically capture regulators and be the sole, uh,

sort of like

dominant, maybe the only player at the frontier.

Um, do you think that might be what they're doing?

And, and obviously you would-- you have concerns about that.

You would need to-- I mean, I would have concerns

if they actually did that.

You'd need to ask them if that's what they wanna do.

Yeah. And again, just on specific policies that you guys,

um, do

not want to support that Anthropic is supporting,

whether that's the federal level,

at the state level. Um, 'cause again, you guys are,

are now on the same page when

it comes to, uh, pacing the frontier-

Yeah

... with China. Same page with third-party evaluators.

Um, w- you know, what's, what's just one differentiator?

Um,

the last I heard, one of the different differentiators is

we don't want any

restrictions or testing on anything but the frontier models.

We do not want to slow down people that make very powerful

but not the absolute

frontier in the spirit of, um,

you know, really focusing on the potential

catastrophic risks.

I don't, I don't think, even though

I believe that if you don't put any testing or any oversight on

models that are one or two generations behind the frontier,

I accept that

bad things will happen with those, um, I would not go advocate a licensing regime

for those.