Arnold urges the city to send a clear market signal for validators

Thank you, Speaker.

And yeah, I agree with these kind of comments.

It's such a tough challenge and totally agree with you that New York can be both.

And I think people are looking for answers that's not so black and white and realize the reality of this.

You know, that's such an important question.

You know, I think who can be third-party validators?

I think it's yes and and for everyone.

The labs are doing a lot.

Like you heard, Anthropic is investing a lot into this.

There are many more people going to AI alignment and safety research, which is so important.

I think the one thing that's challenging is going to be, I think the things are, like everyone said, moving so quickly.

I think everyone can be a judge.

Experts today, like yesterday, six months ago, is not the same thing as today.

And what's really going to happen is that you all can also be the judges by using this, like what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

A lot of it's, I think, common sense, hopefully, in the future.

And then the last point I kind of make to that, even though that seems counterintuitive about who are the experts, where we all can play a role, we have agency, is that in the future, it's not just these five, what we call frontier labs.

All the companies here in New York are fine-tuning their own models.

We all may have our own very powerful models in the future.

So actually, beyond the frontier labs, part of the challenge may be actually, you know, your student researcher downloading a model and uploading it and fine-tuning it to create capabilities or test things.

Or, you know, a company to do.

inadvertently.

So I think it's a much broader set of things than just relying on experts.

I think, again, that is important, but I think we need to really widen the scope around that.

This is not a technology where it's going to be nuclear weapons controlled by a dozen states.

These will be as powerful, but we will have use and access to that, and I don't think that's going to stop.

If I can jump in with just one last thought.

I want to pick up on the yes and approach because I think this is right.

I was just talking with someone the other day who works at one of these evaluators today, and they joked that there were dozens of entities that could do this, and by that they meant a dozen people, not a dozen different companies.

I think we'll need to rely on both academia and private parties.

I think we'll also have to rely on the public, right?

A big part of incident reporting is revealing some of that information to the public.

One of the only times I've ever been happy with Twitter was this summer as people were arguing over the incidents and we were starting to get a better idea of what happened.

One note of caution I'll add is that

One way this goes wrong is that the few potential evaluators that there are get tasked with many different things, right?

And there's a chance that New York should lead on this and that they should also coordinate with the state and with California and others and not be overly prescriptive in the exact sort of analyses that need to be done by the entities.

Where you can be exceptionally helpful is in sending a clear market signal.

So requiring that these audits or validations be done in order to get contracts with the city or things like that.