Anthropic’s proposed AI safety bill only kicks in if 50 deaths or $1 billion in damages are on the line — proposal would effectively make the Commerce Department the only agency capable of stopping an AI model

an AI-generated face facing off with a person in front of a terminal
(Image credit: Getty Images)
12

Anthropic is quietly lobbying for an AI safety bill that will allow the government to block an AI model’s release only if it poses a risk of causing $1 billion in damages or killing or injuring more than 50 people. According to Politico, an independent third party registered with the Department of Commerce would periodically evaluate the lab and its AI models. It also noted that the lab may pay the evaluators, but only if the payment does not affect their independence.

“This bill represents the proposals outlined in Anthropic’s Advanced AI Framework, which we have been advocating for with federal and state lawmakers since June,” an Anthropic spokesperson told the publication. “These are sensible policies we believe Congress should act on.”

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • Dementoss
    I think there needs to be international, legally binding agreement, that any and all AI developers, will be held responsible for any damages they cause, either deliberately or through failing to apply sufficient safeguards. But, we all know such an agreement will not happen.
    Reply
  • bill001g
    The major flaw in their theory is thinking "department of commerce" or any other government agency will matter. What can they do if the company or data center is say in canada. What about north korea.

    Laws make no difference especially if the AI itself is going to violate them even when told not to.
    Reply
  • timsSOFTWARE
    "On the line" - who makes that determination/what does that mean? How would you even know what's potentially "on the line" with something like new AI development until the development is already completed? They keep trying to create a moat where they know they don't currently have one.
    Reply
  • Ron Olbrey
    It's the Ford Pinto all over again. The fix will cost more that the litigation cost of killing 50 or fewer people,
    Reply
  • usertests
    Too strict. There should be no AI safety bill at all.
    Reply
  • ejolson
    That's not a safety bill; it's about permissions and an attempt at regulatory capture.
    Reply
  • phead128
    Department of Justice already exist to hold criminally liable any harm or destruction caused by companies who knowingly let harmful products into the public domain.

    Trying to get Department of Commerce involved is just a blatant attempt to ban foreign open weight competition models and regulatory capture.
    Reply
  • criticaloftom
    i think there already are laws to deal with this. it's a tool just like a those mosquito zappers. if it kills people by negligent design the designer/ company owner gets manslaughter charges in the number caused.
    Reply
  • timsSOFTWARE
    usertests said:
    Too strict. There should be no AI safety bill at all.

    I don't think most people understand just how simple the underlying principles/concepts are. The only real gate is computing power. The only thing actually that makes it slightly hard is that acknowledging how it works, also means accepting that our own brains likely work in a very similar way - that's sort of hard, because we were programmed to think differently/avoid considering the question too deeply for the most part.

    But the principles are very simple - not really much more complex than gradeschool-level math - and when you see it/are forced to acknowledge it, it seems so obvious, it doesn't feel like any sort of special revelation - it's more like, "I feel so stupid/ignorant for not seeing this before - at least I have company, because a lot of people considered "great minds" apparently didn't see it either."
    Reply
  • Bigshrimp
    I always see this as an excuse to abuse their AI to do whatever the hell they want and then blame it on something else. It's never the AI companies fault, lol. I am sure some of us see what they are really doing here. Regulations are for normal people, not big Ponzi scheme companies.

    It's wild that they have to put it at 50 deaths as the minimum. It should be 1 death as the minimum. The $1 billion in damages is a wild minimum as well for similar reasons, and it should be much lower. Any excuse to hurt people and avoid accountability. So if 49 people die or lose millions of dollars from their AI in some tragic incident, everything's fine then? How in the world would they determine what is on the line until it's too late?
    Reply