Menin asks whether public should accept AI harms

So basically, I'm going to take it then that neither of the four of you, no company here can quantify the risk of something cataclysmic happening.

Okay, I'm going to move on.

Sam Altman said yesterday that we should accept that, quote, the world should accept some bad things happening as a price of advancing this technology.

No one is questioning that the incredible medical and scientific breakthroughs and innovation that AI has brought to this world.

But why should the public accept that bad things should be happening?

And why should AI companies get to decide what level of risk society must bear?

I'm going to go in order.

I'm going to start with you, Ms.

Dwyer, please.

So we think AI has tremendous potential benefits to help solve some of humanity's hardest problems.

But no technology is without risks.

And there are a wide spectrum of risks.

Clearly, some risks are unacceptable.

But we also think it's important to get technology into the hands of as many people as possible so that they can benefit from it.

And that's why we are focused on safety.

We train our models to be safe from the start.

We evaluate them against a robust set of risks.

And we work with a large network of third-party evaluators.

We've also supported regulation that requires third-party audits of our safety frameworks, as well as regulation that focuses on youth safety and holds us accountable for keeping teens safe.