The video explores the ongoing dialogue around artificial intelligence's promises versus its actual implementation and safety. It highlights a Senate hearing where former OpenAI board member, Miss Turner, provides insights into the internal dynamics of AI companies that are often led by executives with vested financial interests. Her testimony brings to light discrepancies between the public statements and actual safety practices within AI firms, particularly OpenAI.

The hearing aims to scrutinize the efforts and adequacy of safety protocols in AI development, urging the need for legislative intervention to protect public interest. Miss Turner emphasizes the conflict between company incentives and substantial safety implementations, stressing the importance of external influence and regulation. She also touches on the perceived competition with China, arguing that it should not deter regulatory progress within the AI sector in the United States.

Key takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. Testimony [ˈtɛstɪˌmoʊni] - (n.) - A formal or written statement given in a court of law or other inquiry.

I think the testimony you're about to offer is so important...

2. Legislating [ˈlɛdʒɪsˌleɪtɪŋ] - (v.) - The act of creating or enacting laws.

...and also, I hope, help us, as Senator Blumenthal alluded to, legislate...

3. Proponents [prəˈpoʊnənts] - (n.) - Advocates or supporters of a particular idea or cause.

Many Avid proponents of this AI revolution...

4. Rosy [ˈroʊzi] - (adj.) - Optimistic or overly positive.

...given us all kinds of Rosy predictions.

5. Deployment [dɪˈplɔɪmənt] - (n.) - The movement of forces or resources into position for military action or other purpose.

...which was one of the first formal processes that I'm aware of, was this deployment safety board...

6. Amplify [ˈæmplɪˌfaɪ] - (v.) - To expand or elaborate on something.

Could you just amplify that, because we've heard a lot of folks...

7. Macro [ˈmækroʊ] - (adj.) - Large-scale or overall perspective of a situation or field.

...they are facing some serious Macro headwinds...

8. Compensate [ˈkɑːmpənˌseɪt] - (v.) - To counterbalance, offset, or make up for something.

...against any kind of regulation. I think that's mistaken on a few fronts.

9. Innovation [ˌɪnəˈveɪʃən] - (n.) - The process of creating and implementing new ideas or things.

...and about to pass this at any moment. And I think it also totally belies the fact that regulation and innovation do not have to be in tension.

10. Scrutinize [ˈskruːtəˌnaɪz] - (v.) - To examine or inspect closely and thoroughly.

The hearing aims to scrutinize the efforts and adequacy of safety protocols...

Unveiling the AI Promise and Safety Dilemma

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Thanks for your leadership on this over this entire congress. It's been a real pleasure to work with you. Thanks to our witnesses for being here. I don't really have much to add to Senator Blumenthal's outstanding opening statement, other than just to observe that we have had many executives sit where our witnesses today are sitting. Many Avid proponents of this AI revolution that we're in the midst of.

And we've heard a lot of promises to this subcommittee from those executives who, I might just point out, always seem to have a very significant financial interest in what they're saying. Be that as it may, but they have given us all kinds of Rosy predictions. AI is going to be wonderful for this country. It's going to be fantastic for the workers of this country. It's going to be amazing for normal, Workaday Americans.

Well, I think today's hearing is particularly interesting and particularly important because today we start to test those promises we have in front of us. Folks who have been inside those companies, who have worked on these technologies, who have seen them firsthand, and I might just observe, don't have quite the Vested interest in painting that Rosy picture and cheerleading in the same way that some of these other executives have.

So I want to particularly thank you for being here today. Our witnesses thank you for being willing to speak up, and thank you for being willing to give the american people a window into what's actually happening with this technology. I think the testimony you're about to offer is so important, and I think it will help us realize, understand where this technology is, what the challenges are that we are facing, and also, I hope, help us, as Senator Blumenthal alluded to, legislate in a way that will actually protect the american people, which is our charge in all of this.

Thank you, Mister chairman. Thank you, Mister chairman. Miss Turner, I just want to stay with you and maybe pick up there. My understanding is that when you left the open AI board, one of the reasons that you did so is you felt you couldn't do your job properly, meaning you couldn't effectively oversee Mister Altman and some of the safety decisions that he was making. You had said this year that, I'm just going to quote you, that Mister Altman gave inaccurate information about the small number of formal safety processes that the company did have in place.

That is, that he gave incorrect information to the board. To the extent you're able. Can you just elaborate on this? I'm interested in what's actually being done for safety inside this company. In no small part because of what he told us when he sat where you're sitting.

Thank you, senator. Yes, I'm happy to elaborate to the extent that I can, without breaching any Confidentiality obligations. I believe that when the company has safety processes, they announce them loudly and proudly. So I believe that you and your staff would be aware of, of the processes they have in place at the time. One that I was thinking of, which was one of the first formal processes that I'm aware of, was this deployment safety board that I just discussed, and this breach by Microsoft that took place in the early days there.

Since then, they have introduced a preparedness framework, which I think is, I want to commend many of these companies for taking some good steps. The idea behind the preparedness framework is good. I think to the extent they execute on it, that's great. But there have been concerns raised about how well they're able to comply with it.

They've also, it's been publicly reported that the really respected expert they brought in to run that team has since been reassigned from that role, which I worry what that means for the influence that that team is able to exert on the rest of the company. And I think that is Illustrative as well, of a larger dynamic that I'm sure all the witnesses here today have observed, which is there are really great people inside all of these companies trying to do really great things.

And the challenge is that if everything is up to the companies themselves and to the leadership teams who are needing to make trade offs around, getting products out, making profits, attracting new investors, those teams may not get the resourcing, the time, the influence, the ability to actually shape what happens that they need. So I think many of the dynamics that I witnessed echo very much what I'm hearing from my fellow witnesses.

That's very helpful. Let me just ask you this. Let me just put a finer point on it, because Mister Altman, as I said, testified to us on this connection this past year. Here's part of what he said we make, meaning OpenAI, significant efforts to ensure that safety is built into our system at all levels.

And then he went on to say, I'm still quoting him. Before releasing any new system, OpenAI conducts extensive testing, engages external experts for detailed reviews and independent audits, improves the model's behavior, and implements Robust safety and monitoring systems. In your experience, is that accurate?

I believe it is possible to characterize the company's activities accurately that way, yes. The question is how much is enough, who is making those decisions and what incentives are driving those decisions? So in practice, if you make a commitment, you have to write that commitment down in some words. And then when you go to implement it, there's going to be a lot of detailed decisions you have to make about what information is shared with whom, at what time, who is brought into the right room to make a certain decision.

Is your safety team, whatever kind of safety team it might be, are they brought in from the very beginning to help with conception of the product? Really think from the start about what implications this might have? Or are they handed something a couple of weeks before a launch deadline and told, ok, make this as good as you can do here?

I'm not trying to refer to any specific incidents at OpenAI. I'm really referring to, again, examples that I have heard, reported publicly, heard from across the industry, that there are good efforts. And I worry that we should not, that if we rely on the companies to make all of those trade offs, all of those detailed decisions about how those commitments are implemented, that they're unable, they're just unable to fully account for the interests of a broad public.

And I think you hear this as well from people. I've heard this from people in multiple companies, Sentiment along the lines of please help us slow down, please give us guardrails that we can point to that are external, that help us not only be subject to these, these market pressures.

Just in general, is your impression now, is OpenAI doing enough in terms of its safety procedures and protocols to adequately vet its own products and to protect the public? I think it depends entirely on how rapidly their research progresses. If their most aggressive predictions of how quickly their systems will get more advanced are correct, then I have serious concerns if their predictions, their most aggressive predictions may well be wrong, in which case I'm somewhat less concerned.

Let me, finally, because I want to be mindful of the time, and I've got colleagues who want to ask questions. Let me just end with this. In your written testimony, you make, I think, a very important and helpful point about AI development in China and why the competition with China, though real, should not be taken as an excuse for us to do nothing.

Could you just amplify that, because we've heard a lot of folks sitting where you're sitting over the last year and a half raise the China point and usually say, well, we mustn't, we mustn't lose the race to China. Therefore, it would be better if Congress did little to nothing. You think that that's wrong? Just explain this to us why I think that the competition with China is certainly a very important consideration and we should be keeping a very close eye on what they're doing and how us technology compares to their technology.

But I think it is used as an all purpose excuse to not regulate and an all purpose defense against any kind of regulation. I think that's mistaken on a few fronts. It's mistaken because of what's happening in China. They are regulating their sector pretty heavily. They are, you know, scrambling to keep up with the US. They are facing some serious Macro headwinds in terms of economic problems, access to semiconductors after us export controls.

So China has its own set of issues. We shouldn't treat them as just absolutely raring to go and about to pass this at any moment. And I think it also totally belies the fact that regulation and innovation do not have to be in tension. This is a technology AI that consumers don't trust.

There's been recent consumer Sentiment surveys showing that if they see AI in a product description, they're less likely to use the product. So if you can implement regulation that is light touch, that increases consumer trust, that helps the government be positioned to understand what is going on with the technology, you can regulate in really sensible ways without even impacting innovation at all.

So then it's irrelevant if it's going to affect the race with China.

Artificial Intelligence, Technology, Economics, Safety Protocols, AI Regulation, OpenAI Insights