OpenAI and Anthropic Tell British Lawmakers: Regulate Us

Representatives for OpenAI and Anthropic told a British parliamentary hearing that voluntary pledges were no longer enough to ensure safety and that new laws should be introduced, deepening a public schism with Google DeepMind and Meta, both of which declined to back new legislation.

OpenAI 和 Anthropic 的代表在英国议会听证会上表示，自愿承诺已不足以确保安全，必须引入新的法律。这一表态加深了他们与 Google DeepMind 和 Meta 之间的公开分歧，后两者均拒绝支持新的立法。

The Business, Innovation, Science, and Trade Committee, comprising a cross-party panel of MPs, held an evidence session on Tuesday with appearances from four frontier AI firms, four former staff of the firms turned whistleblowers and senior British civil servants.

由跨党派议员组成的商业、创新、科学和贸易委员会于周二举行了一场证据听证会，四家前沿人工智能公司、四名转为举报人的前公司员工以及英国高级公务员出席了会议。

“The rules should be binding,” Anthropic’s head of Europe Liam Booth-Smith told the committee, when asked if the company’s view was that AI safety now needs a statutory framework. The company, he said, has “consistently believed that there should be binding rules on companies and that voluntary commitments are not enough.”

当被问及公司是否认为人工智能安全现在需要一个法定框架时，Anthropic 欧洲区负责人利亚姆·布斯-史密斯（Liam Booth-Smith）告诉委员会：“规则应该是强制性的。”他表示，该公司“一直认为应该对公司制定强制性规则，仅靠自愿承诺是不够的。”

OpenAI vice president Tom Duff Gordon was more cautious but still supportive, backing a statutory framework and an international convention. Duff Gordon said “there should be some elements that should be mandatory,” starting with incident reporting. “We don’t think basing everything on voluntary commitments for frontier risk is a good long-term plan,” he said.

OpenAI 副总裁汤姆·达夫·戈登（Tom Duff Gordon）的态度更为谨慎，但仍表示支持，他赞成建立法定框架和国际公约。达夫·戈登表示，“应该有一些强制性的要素”，首先就是事故报告。他说：“我们认为，将前沿风险的一切都建立在自愿承诺的基础上，并不是一个好的长期计划。”

However, their rivals would not follow. Asked directly whether he supported a statutory framework, Google DeepMind’s Owen Larter said: “Focus on the standards is what we would be doing.” Meta’s Rob Sherman pointed to Britain’s existing regulators, telling MPs they were “not writing on a blank page.”

然而，他们的竞争对手并未效仿。当被直接问及是否支持法定框架时，Google DeepMind 的欧文·拉特（Owen Larter）表示：“我们要做的是专注于标准。”Meta 的罗伯·谢尔曼（Rob Sherman）则指向英国现有的监管机构，告诉议员们他们“并非在白纸上书写”。

The hearing exposed an existing divide on the subject of regulation, putting the conflicting approaches of AI leaders on the British parliamentary record. Exposing this divide in a second jurisdiction was the point, according to select committee chair Liam Byrne. The committee set out “to light up the wide differences in opinions between some of the wealthiest firms on Earth,” he told WIRED after the hearing, and to show “that you couldn’t rely on voluntary self-regulation.”

此次听证会暴露了在监管问题上现存的分歧，并将人工智能领军企业相互冲突的方针记录在案。特别委员会主席利亚姆·伯恩（Liam Byrne）表示，在第二个司法管辖区揭示这种分歧正是目的所在。他在听证会后告诉《连线》（WIRED），委员会旨在“照亮地球上一些最富有公司之间巨大的意见分歧”，并表明“你不能依赖自愿的自我监管”。

While the four executives gave evidence to the committee on AI safety, only a few hundred meters away, Britain’s security service director issued a warning about the dangers of AI.

就在四位高管向委员会提供有关人工智能安全的证据时，仅几百米外，英国安全局局长就人工智能的危险发出了警告。

MI5 director Ken McCallum used his annual threat update to warn of bioweapon misuse as a significant threat from AI. “Not yet realized, but the misuse case to which I’d attach greatest weight, is AI’s potential to change the stakes on existing or even new bioweapons,” McCallum said.

军情五处（MI5）局长肯·麦卡勒姆（Ken McCallum）在年度威胁评估中警告称，生物武器的滥用是人工智能带来的重大威胁。麦卡勒姆说：“虽然尚未实现，但我最看重的滥用案例是人工智能有潜力改变现有甚至新型生物武器的风险程度。”

Responding to this comment, Byrne told WIRED: “The fact that the head of MI5 is warning about incredibly dangerous capability uplifts for bioterrorists in one part of Whitehall, and then in another part of Whitehall the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office is basically admitting that our regulatory regime for AI is voluntary, tells you everything you need to know.”

针对这一评论，伯恩告诉《连线》：“军情五处负责人一方面在白厅（英国政府所在地）警告生物恐怖分子可能获得极其危险的能力提升，而另一方面，内阁办公室常务秘书却基本上承认我们的 AI 监管制度是自愿的，这一事实说明了一切。”

In the final part of the evidence session, civil servants conceded to the committee how little the current system compels. Britain’s AI Security Institute (AISI) tests frontier models before release, but only when companies choose to hand them over.

在证据听证会的最后部分，公务员们向委员会承认，目前的制度几乎没有强制力。英国人工智能安全研究所（AISI）会在前沿模型发布前进行测试，但前提是公司选择将其移交。

Henry de Zoete, director of AISI, acknowledged that the institute was entirely reliant on the cooperation of the companies and foreign governments in order to gain access. Cat Little, the top civil servant at the Cabinet Office, which houses AISI, was pressed on whether the whole regime was voluntary. “At the moment, yes, it is,” she said.

AISI 主任亨利·德·佐特（Henry de Zoete）承认，该研究所完全依赖公司和外国政府的合作才能获得访问权限。AISI 所属的内阁办公室最高公务员凯特·利特尔（Cat Little）在被追问整个制度是否为自愿时表示：“目前来看，是的。”

When asked what would happen if AISI judged a model to be too dangerous, but it was released by a company anyway, de Zoete acknowledged AISI had no ability to prevent them from doing so.

当被问及如果 AISI 判定某个模型过于危险，但公司仍执意发布会发生什么时，德·佐特承认 AISI 没有能力阻止他们这样做。

“What we’re not doing is kite marking,” de Zoete said, using the British term for a safety certification. “We’re not saying yes or no to any sort of model.” He added: “These companies are either American or Chinese who are building at the frontier … There’s only so much we, as the UK, can do in that kind of context.”

“我们并没有进行‘风筝标志’认证，”德·佐特使用了一个英国术语来指代安全认证，“我们不会对任何模型说‘是’或‘否’。”他补充道：“这些在最前沿进行开发的公司要么是美国公司，要么是中国公司……在那种背景下，我们作为英国能做的非常有限。”

The frontier executives also made plain that British access runs through Washington. “We provide our models predeployment to CAISI,” OpenAI’s Duff Gordon said, referring to AISI’s US counterpart. “We will continue to provide our models pre-deployment to AISI in the UK … and as long as we’re able to do that under the US government, we will continue to do it.”

这些前沿公司的高管也明确表示，英国的访问权限取决于华盛顿。OpenAI 的达夫·戈登在提到 AISI 的美国对应机构时说：“我们在部署前向 CAISI 提供我们的模型。我们将继续在部署前向英国的 AISI 提供模型……只要我们在美国政府的许可下能够这样做，我们就会继续这样做。”

The tension of the existing arrangement was made clear to British officials by Anthropic’s Booth-Smith. “We unfortunately were not able to provide full unrestricted access to [Mythos 5.1] to UK AISI at that time … That’s a question for the US government,” he said before adding that AISI now had access.

Anthropic 的布斯-史密斯向英国官员阐明了现有安排的紧张关系。他说：“遗憾的是，我们当时无法向英国 AISI 提供对 [Mythos 5.1] 的完全不受限制的访问权限……那是美国政府的问题。”随后他补充说，AISI 现在已经获得了访问权限。

The session also heard from four former lab researchers, among them ex-OpenAI staffer Daniel Kokotajlo. “I don’t think the companies can be trusted to self-regulate,” he told MPs. Steven Adler, who left OpenAI in late 2024, said he was “not confident in the safety culture across the industry.” Geoffrey Irving said the labs believe they are locked in a race that governments will not interrupt and that they cannot leave. “Both of those are false,” he said. “They could just stop.”

听证会还听取了四名前实验室研究人员的证词，其中包括前 OpenAI 员工丹尼尔·科科泰洛（Daniel Kokotajlo）。他告诉议员们：“我不认为这些公司值得信任去进行自我监管。”2024 年底离开 OpenAI 的史蒂文·阿德勒（Steven Adler）表示，他“对整个行业的安全文化没有信心”。杰弗里·欧文（Geoffrey Irving）表示，实验室认为他们陷入了一场政府不会干预且他们无法退出的竞赛。“这两点都是错误的，”他说，“他们完全可以停下来。”

Following the hearing Byrne told WIRED that his committee would now dedicate a lot of time examining the UK’s path forward as a middle power on AI. He wants ministers to use Britain’s coming G20 presidency, alongside South Korea, which follows it in the chair, to broker an international convention that does not depend on the current White House. “The G20 presidency will outlive the US presidency of Trump,” he said. “The risks,” he added, “are multiplying faster than our safety regime can control.”

听证会结束后，伯恩告诉《连线》，他的委员会现在将投入大量时间研究英国作为人工智能中等强国的未来道路。他希望部长们利用英国即将担任 G20 主席国的机会，与接任主席国的韩国合作，促成一项不依赖于当前白宫的国际公约。“G20 主席国的任期将比特朗普的美国总统任期更长，”他说。他补充道：“风险的增长速度已经超过了我们安全制度的控制能力。”