Anthropic, Meta, and Google respond to Altman's acceptance of harm

Okay, I'm going to move on to the other three companies to the answer to the same question about why should the public accept the comments that Mr.

Altman made yesterday that the world should accept bad things happening and why should AI companies get to decide what level of risk society must bear.

So I'm going to go in order.

Mr.

Graham.

Yeah, well, I didn't see all of Mr.

Altman's comments yesterday.

I share the notion expressed here that, number one, while maximizing the benefits of this technology, you need to minimize the risks.

And we should not be comfortable with letting these risks happen.

This is why over the course of our history and my team's history, we have been, I think, sometimes accused of being overly cautious.

I would say appropriately cautious.

Just this year, withholding our most powerful model in order to just have more time to even think about collectively as industry as well as government, what to do about these capabilities.

And fundamentally, this transcends the labs and industry.

From our beginning, we have long supported the role of government here for exactly this reason.

Mr.

Cahill?

Apologies, Speaker.

There was a strange moment there with the mute button.

Thank you very much for the question.

In relation to the quote from Mr.

Altman that you read out, I don't see it the same way.

We absolutely recognize the risks of AI and the opportunities.

That's why we have our scaling framework.

That's why we have our preparedness reports.

That's why we have teams and teams of people and a multilayered approach to AI safety.

One thing I wanted to mention, if I may, is that Meta's vision is to bring personal superintelligence to everyone.

And I listened very intently to the panel before us in relation to recursive self-improvement.

And I just wanted to mention that committing significant majority of compute

towards serving people rather than racing towards recursive self-improvement is one of the best ways of ensuring that the technology is developed safely.

Meta has made that commitment and other labs can do that also.

Ms.

Friend?

Yeah, Madam Speaker, we shouldn't just accept bad things happening.

We should be working continuously and rigorously on AI safety, which is a collective effort.

It will be a collective effort to identify and mitigate risks, to establish technical standards, to make those identifications and mitigations all the more rigorous.

But I also want to note that one of the promises of AI is that AI itself can make us safer.

I would call your attention to Waymo vehicles, which in one study had a 96% reduction in injury-causing crashes at intersections, which led Dr.

Jonathan Slotkin in the New York Times to call it a public health intervention.

So we should think collectively about preventing and mitigating risks from AI, but we should also keep in mind that we can use AI itself to reduce risks to human safety and well-being.