Regulators. So I think the key point was really that it's important for us. It's important for us to have a referee, just as you have a referee in a sports game or all sports games, and that the games are better for it to ensure that those you know, the players, pay the rules play fairly. I think it is important for similar reasons to have a regularator regulator, which you can think of as a referee, to ensure that companies take actions that are safe and in the interests of the general public.
Did you tell them that AI has a double edged sword? Yes, And what did you mean by that? Well, what did the metaphor? Yeah? I mean I mean well, if you have a sword with two sides, when you're in one side can get you even though you're trying to get something with the other side. What do you want them to take away? I think it more important to make sure your hilt is also you have a hilt, not a shop thing. Yea. How do you think they how
do you think they took the message that you brought to them? Well, I think it was. It was. It was very civilized discussion, actually among some of the smartest people in the world. So I thought it was Senator Schumer a great service here, humanity here along with sport of the rest of the Senate, and I think we'll I think something good will come of this this. I think this meeting may goun on history as being very important
for the future of civilization. Do you think some legislation is going to come out of this? Probably? I'm not sure what the timeframe of that is, but you know, the legislative process is not a swift one. But I think it's I think this will the things will go in the right direction generally. Schumer or Leader Schimer did ask everyone to raise their hands in the room to see if they were in favor of AI regulation, and I believe almost everyone did. Yeah, so that's a good sign. Do you think
any of the text CEOs left and change their minds? Do you think they were changed by anything they hurt from the Senate side? Well, I can't read their mind but judgment by the fact that they put their hands up when asked if they if they believed that some regulation is in order. I think the general I think it's clear that there's a strong consensus, a woman of woman consensus that there should be some AI regulation, that it would be in
the best interests of the people to do so. And I think we'll probably see something happen. I don't know on what timeframe or exactly how it will manifest itself. But the questions what were they going to do? I don't know. I mean, there's there's clearly we've created regulatory agencies before and actually
just recently. Just believing me the point that, you know, while our regulatory agencies are not perfect, and I deal with regulators on a very frequent basis with the automotive, you know, communications to starlink and then FA with with with rockets. So I've had transpantent interaction with regulators for you know, a couple of decades at least, And while regulators are not perfect, there's no regulatory agency that I'm aware of that I would I think we should at
the federal level at least that that we should delete. Yeah, so I think I or something like that, I don't know what exactly, Perhaps perhaps an apartment of AI. Probably, let's say, I think the probability of there being some sort of a regulatory agency that stands on its own, similar to the FAO FCC is likely at some point, you think, sample I think so. Now, the reason that I've been such an advocate for AI safety in advance of sort of anything terrible happening is that I think the consequences
of AI going wrong are our sphere. So we have to be proactive rather than reactive in the past. If he takes a and I'm being somewhat late for speaking of regulators, I'm a little late for the FA I'm meeting with the doone hold you up? I'm sure, but yeah, if you take the example of say seat belts, seat belts were opposed by the auto industry for a very long time, even though the data was very clear that they're
safe, that they radically improve deaths and injuries. So you know, we we don't want to be in that situation where we're fighting regulations even though you know there's a safety thing. We can't wait for millions of people to die in auto accidents, as you know, like, and it's important to just elevate the question here. Question is is really one of civilizational risk. So just it's it's not like one group versus another, one group of humans versus
another. It's like, hey, this is something that's potentially risky for all humans everywhere, It's very important to to understand that is there an equivalent of really, Congress, it's sufficiently ready to regulate a no, no, no no. The sequence of events will not be jumping in at the deep end and making rules, but it starts with and with insight. In fact, this is actually how all of the regulatory bodies have been formed. Believe.
As you start with a group form to create insight to understand the situation, then you have proposed rulemaking, You'll get some objections from industry or whatever, and then ultimately you get sort of consensus on rolemaking. That rulemaking then becomes a law regulation. What's resedge to an ordinary person? Sperment actually, thank you. Another by Mark Zuckerberg