Researcher from AI Now Institute criticizes the defense of AI companies' self-regulation through superintelligence threats
Researcher Boyan Milanov of the AI Now Institute describes predictions of doom caused by superintelligence as scientifically unverifiable. He criticizes their use to justify self-regulation, in which AI companies determine their own standards instead of independent audits.
Researcher Boyan Milanov, who works as a Senior Research Scientist at the AI Now Institute, criticizes the use of ideas about superintelligence to justify self-regulation by AI companies. According to him, predictions of doom caused by superintelligence are not backed by scientific work, and their claims can be neither scientifically verified nor disproven.
According to the article, the leadership of Anthropic and OpenAI claim that their organizations specifically are capable of developing these systems responsibly, with safeguards that they set themselves. According to researcher Boyan Milanov, this approach allows companies to determine their own standards and processes. The commentary contrasts this with audits conducted by independent parties in the public interest.
Why it matters
For companies evaluating AI vendors, it matters who sets the safety rules and who verifies compliance with them. The criticism points to the difference between a vendor's own standards and an independent audit; according to the researcher, claims about future superintelligence alone do not provide a scientifically verifiable basis for justifying self-regulation.
Relevant practical impact
What this means
For a business
The commentary highlights the question of oversight independence in evaluating AI vendor risks: a company's own standards and audits conducted in the public interest represent different forms of oversight.
Risks and complianceCheck the original
Event sources
only one source so far · 1 publisher, 1 independent. We count feeds from the same owner only once.