Dario Amodei

The second thing is I don't think you can trust these companies to adhere to these voluntary plans on their own, right? I like to think that Anthropic will. We do everything we can that we will. Our RSP is checked by our long-term benefit trust. So we do everything we can to adhere to our own RSP.

Um, but you know, you hear lots of things about various companies saying, oh, they said they would do, they said they would give this much compute and they didn't, they said they would do this thing and they didn't. Um, you know, I don't, I don't think it makes sense to, you know, to, to, to, you know, litigate particular things that companies have done.

But I think this, this broad principle that like, if there's nothing watching over them, there's nothing watching over us as an industry. there's no guarantee that we'll do the right thing. And the stakes are very high.

And so I think it's important to have a uniform standard that everyone follows and to make sure that simply that the industry does what a majority of the industry has already said is important and has already said that they definitely will do. Some people, I think there's a class of people who are against regulation on principle. I understand where that comes from.

If you go to Europe and you see something like GDPR, you see some of the other stuff that they've done, some of it's good, but some of it is really unnecessarily burdensome. And I think it's fair to say really has slowed innovation. And so I understand where people are coming from on priors. I understand why people start from that position. But again, I think AI is different.

If we go to the very serious risks of autonomy and misuse that I talked about just a few minutes ago, I think that those are unusual and they weren't an unusually strong response. And so I think it's very important. Again, we need something that everyone can get behind. You know, I think one of the issues with SB 1047, especially the original version of it, was it.

It had a bunch of the structure of RSPs, but it also had a bunch of stuff that was either clunky or that just would have created a bunch of burdens, a bunch of hassle, and might even have missed the target in terms of addressing the risks. You don't really hear about it on Twitter. You just hear about kind of, you know, people are, people are cheering for any regulation.

And then the folks who are against make up these often quite intellectually dishonest arguments about how, you know, it, you know, it'll make us move away from California. Bill, Bill doesn't apply.

If you're headquartered in California, Bill only applies if you do business in California or that it would damage the open source ecosystem or that it would, you know, it would cause, cause all of these things. I, I think those were mostly nonsense, but there are better arguments against regulation.

There's one guy, Dean Ball, who's really, you know, I think a very scholarly, scholarly analyst who looks at what happens when a regulation is put in place and ways that they can kind of get a life of their own or how they can be poorly designed. And so our interest has always been, we do think there should be regulation in this space, but

We want to be an actor who makes sure that that regulation is something that's surgical, that's targeted at the serious risks, and is something people can actually comply with. Because something I think the advocates of regulation don't understand as well as they could is if we get something in place that is –

that's poorly targeted, that wastes a bunch of people's time, what's going to happen is people are going to say, see, these safety risks, this is nonsense. I just had to hire 10 lawyers to fill out all these forms. I had to run all these tests for something that was clearly not dangerous. And after six months of that, there will be a groundswell. And

And we'll end up with a durable consensus against regulation. And so I think the worst enemy of those who want real accountability is badly designed regulation. We need to actually get it right. And if there's one thing I could say to the advocates, it would be that I want them to understand this dynamic better. And we need to be really careful. And we need to talk to people who actually have

who actually have experience seeing how regulations play out in practice. And the people who have seen that understand to be very careful. If this was some lesser issue, I might be against regulation at all. But what I want the opponents to understand is that the underlying issues are actually serious.

They're not something that I or the other companies are just making up because of regulatory capture. They're not sci-fi fantasies. They're not any of these things. Every time we have a new model, every few months, we measure the behavior of these models, and they're getting better and better at these concerning tasks, just as they are getting better and better at...

good, valuable, economically useful tasks. And so I would just love it if some of the former, I think SB 1047 was very polarizing. I would love it if some of the most reasonable opponents and some of the most reasonable opponents

uh proponents uh would sit down together and you know i think i think that you know the different the different ai companies um you know anthropic was the the only ai company that you know felt positively in a very detailed way i think elon tweeted uh tweeted briefly something positive but you know some of the some of the big ones like google open ai meta microsoft were

were pretty staunchly against. So I would really like is if some of the key stakeholders, some of the most thoughtful proponents and some of the most thoughtful opponents would sit down and say, how do we solve this problem in a way that the proponents feel

brings a real reduction in risk and that the opponents feel that it is not hampering the industry or hampering innovation any more necessary than it needs to. And I think for whatever reason that things got too polarized and those two groups didn't get to sit down in the way that they should. And I feel urgency. I really think we need to do something in 2025.

You know, if we get to the end of 2025 and we've still done nothing about this, then I'm going to be worried. I'm not worried yet because, again, the risks aren't here yet. But I think time is running short. And come up with something surgical, like you said. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. And we need to get away from this crisis. This intense pro-safety versus intense anti-regulatory rhetoric, right?