Morano rapid-fire questions companies on risk and safety overrides

We're going to go to Councilmember Murano as a bill sponsor, and then we're going to go Brewer, Narcisse.

And Joseph, if folks could keep it to one minute, just because we have to get to the admin panel.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for your testimony today.

I know it's a long day for you guys as well.

Because I only have a minute and my colleagues know what a challenge that is for me, I'm going to go through a series of yes or no questions, and then

you could all answer in the order of Dwyer, Friend, Cahill, Graham, quickly, and then if you want to elaborate on any of the areas that I raised, please do so.

First, does your company believe there's any non-zero chance that advanced AI could escape meaningful human control?

and cause catastrophic harm, as the whistleblowers indicated.

I don't know.

What I will say is that no level of risk of catastrophic harm is acceptable.

So if we could just do yes or no now, and then I'll invite you guys to elaborate after everyone answers.

Please, Ms.

Friend.

Dwyer?

The purpose of our frontier safety framework is to guard against that possibility.

So do we entertain the possibility?

Yes, as a responsible actor in this space, we entertain the possibility.

Council member, our scaling framework includes loss of control in terms of the risks that we evaluate and mitigate.

So, and these are my other yes or no questions, and handle them however you want.

So why should the public accept, essentially trust us as the safety standard from the same companies racing each other to build the most powerful systems?

Additionally, will you commit today that if your own safety team says a model is too dangerous to deploy, commercial pressure won't ever overrule that judgment?

Additionally, has your company ever continued developing or deploying a model over the objections of members of your own safety team?

And lastly, on my bill, should you be allowed to use someone else's, someone's private chatbot conversation for targeted advertising or behavioral profiling without their affirmative consent?

So I will start and try to get through as many answers as possible.

One, OpenAI supports the need not only for us to be responsible for safety, but we have supported regulations

at the federal level as well as at the state level because we think it's important not only for us to be responsible, but for governments to hold us accountable.

On the question of whether we would continue developing models if they were unsafe, OpenAI has recently

announced a pause of some of our training activities because we did not deem moving forward to be safe.

We have also delayed the release of models because we didn't think that they had sufficient safeguards.

So we've done it before.

We will do it again.

And more broadly, I will say that all of our decisions regarding frontier safety and the release of models are governed by our preparedness framework that is available online.

So we're transparent about what goes into those decisions.

And then with the release of every model, every major model, we release a system card, which details the work that we've done, the evaluations that we've conducted, and any residual risks.

Council member, in relation to your first question, I see it differently where we are accountable.

Our framework and preparedness reports are public.

Meta uses outside expertise.

We signed the accord at the White House on superintelligence, which committed us to partnering with independent auditors and assessors.

For example, in relation to, I think, your second question, we delayed the launch of Muse by several months to focus on safety and security.

And we acted on this without waiting for industry.

It was just part of our normal day-to-day work because it was the right thing for us and it was the right thing for people to do.

And then in relation to ads, I would just note that for our Muse product, conversations and interactions do not inform ads on Meta's other products.

Sir, at Google, we do use external evaluators in the process of research and development of our AI models and our systems.

We have supported audits of our safety procedures as well.

And you will see in our recent paper from over the summer, which is called A Pragmatic Approach to AI Regulation in America, we do think that AI needs to be regulated and it needs to be regulated well.

We've supported a range of different legislative proposals at the federal and state levels to this end.

We also, to your question about conversations, we give our users controls over whether their activity in our tools can be used for training our AI models.

So, yes, we think users should be in control of that.

And Council Member, I would point to our longstanding call for the involvement of government at the federal level and the state where necessary and appropriate, because this goes beyond the labs and we don't think the labs should be checking their own homework.

Not only this, but we have demonstrably withheld models when we felt it was not safe to widely release.

This year, withholding our frontier model, probably the most notable instance of this.

Instead, deploying it to cyber defenders in order to secure the world in advance of a world of more powerful models that could.

software vulnerabilities from wherever.

This is part of our process.

We go over and above the process.

We detail our default in the responsible scaling policy.

And to your other question, we believe that cloud should act unambiguously in the user's interests.

And for that reason, we do not run ads nor are cloud's responses influenced by

advertisers.

Thank you so much.