Menin asks public panel who should be third-party validators

Thank you so much.

I really want to thank this panel.

There's so much to unpack in what all of you said that I'll try to be brief.

Jukay, I appreciated how you said that, first of all, we want to make sure that New York City remains the tech hub that it is, and that is how I began this hearing, by really talking about the 400,000 tech jobs that are here,

by all the tech startups that are locating here, and that is something that we welcome and we want to encourage.

I think that actually goes hand in hand with responsible regulation.

The idea that these two ideas are mutually exclusive, I don't agree with at all.

If we really want to instill trust and faith in AI, then the best thing we can do is responsible safeguards, which is what my colleagues and I are doing today with the bills we're putting forward.

So thank you for saying that.

It makes a lot of sense.

I guess the question I have for any of you that want to answer it is,

Yes, one of our bills requires this third-party validation, potentially a kill switch, a third-party validator who's free from conflicts of interest.

I want to ask you the same question that I asked the companies earlier.

Who then is best to be the third-party validator?

Who is best positioned to be in that truly independent, free of conflict of interest, but...

Up to speed technologically to provide that urgent validation.

Okay, yeah, please.

I'm opening it up to any of you.