Sunlight framing: the public's right to know what systems can do and who is responsible.
By year
By actor type
By jurisdiction
Newest first
“Delaying safeguards is not a neutral administrative step. It delays accountability and extends the period in which people affected by AI systems lack the protections the AI Act was supposed to provide.”
Joint analysis with eight partner organisations incl. EDRi, ARTICLE19, Access Now, Amnesty International, ECNL.
“This is a disastrous proposal that Big Tech is celebrating. This bill strips states of their authority to respond to real harms consumers are experiencing.”
“Voluntary frameworks are not enough, however. We need a mandatory government pre-deployment review process for the most powerful AI systems, allowing the government to block the release of systems that pose an unacceptable national security risk.”
“We therefore call on the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council to reject the AI Omnibus on grounds of procedure and substance, and thereby contribute towards ensuring a democratic process, as well as safeguarding fundamental rights protections”
Open letter signed by Amnesty International EIO plus 37 organisations.
“We, the undersigned organisations and individuals, urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject the deletion of the Article 49(2) transparency safeguard for high-risk AI systems that is proposed in the AI Omnibus”
Letter coordinated by Access Now with 46 organisations and 7 experts.
“By enacting the RAISE Act, New York is once again leading the nation in setting a strong and sensible standard for frontier AI safety, holding the biggest developers accountable for their safety and transparency protocols”
“Instead of beating the deregulation drum, the Commission should safeguard the public interest from Big Tech influence and strengthen the enforcement of its existing digital playbook instead.”
Joint report with LobbyControl analysing EU Transparency Register data (EUR 151m/yr digital-industry lobbying).
“Congress has spent a lot of time over the last year debating whether to do away with regulations for the AI industry – this bill is a welcome show of bipartisan support for creating rules of the road to protect the public.”
“SB 53’s transparency requirements will have an important impact on frontier AI safety. Without it, labs with increasingly powerful models could face growing incentives to dial back their own safety and disclosure programs in order to compete.”
“A credible AI Bill must establish powers for government and regulators to define what ‘safe’ looks like. This includes setting safety standards, thresholds for acceptable risk and rules for how harms must be assessed and mitigated.”
“This bill helps to achieve that commonsense goal by creating an administrative subpoena process that allows copyright owners to obtain information from AI companies about the works used to train their models. As the Guild has long recognized, this kind of transparency is essential to giving authors the ability to enforce their rights.”
“Artists deserve to know when their works are used and determine the parameters – the Transparency & Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act empowers rightsholders with valuable insight into which specific inputs AI companies are copying to train their models. Just as importantly, it also ensures a clear path to the courts when authorization has not been given.”
“After review, Anthropic intends to sign the European Union's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice. We believe the Code advances the principles of transparency, safety and accountability—values that have long been championed by Anthropic for frontier AI development.”
“We firmly oppose any attempt to delay or re-open the AI Act, particularly in light of the growing trend of deregulation, which risks undermining key accountability mechanisms and hard-won rights enshrined in EU law across a wide range of protections, including for people, the planet, justice and democracy.”
Joint letter co-branded CDT Europe, EDRi, ECNL and BEUC with ~40 signatory organisations.
“We are therefore proposing a targeted transparency framework, one that could be applied at the federal, state, or international level, and which applies only to the largest AI systems and developers while establishing clear disclosure requirements for safety practices.”
“Despite actively acknowledging that creative work is being stolen at scale, the Government chose once again to remove transparency provisions your Lordships provided, allowing the tech sector to continue to rob the creative industries blind.”
“SAG-AFTRA members and those who rely on their face and voice for their livelihood will be able to demand platforms remove illegal voice and image clones. Creatives will also be able to seek damages from those who intentionally cause harm.”
“The EU needs rules to address the legal gaps left by the AILD withdrawal and ensure a fairer, simpler path to compensation for all people affected by AI systems, including consumers in the EU, in case of harm by an AI system.”
Joint letter with ARTICLE 19, ECNL, CDT Europe, Enforce and Mozilla.
“Big Tech needs to pay for the creative and research content they hoover up to train AI, just as they pay for their electricity and other normal costs of running a legally compliant business. We urgently need transparency regulations to lift the lid on AI usage”
Statement of CEO Dan Conway.
“Rather, it addresses these risks by specifically requiring human oversight of high-risk systems, subjecting systems to comprehensive pre-deployment and biennial impact assessments, and protecting the critical role of trained workers in government decision-making.”
Op-ed co-authored by NYS AFL-CIO President Mario Cilento and Sen. Kristen Gonzalez.
“New legislation, and more robust enforcement of existing laws, will be necessary to ensure foundation models are safe.”
“Number one, I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards. Number two, I would create a set of safety standards focused on what you said in your third hypothesis as the dangerous capability evaluations.”
Speaker: Sam Altman, CEO, OpenAI. Third-party verbatim transcript.
“just come back to the question of, of whether we need an independent agency. I mean, I think we don't want to slow down regulation to address real risks right now. Right? So we have existing regulatory authorities in place who have been clear that they have the ability to regulate in their respective domains.”
Speaker: Christina Montgomery, Chief Privacy & Trust Officer, IBM. Third-party verbatim transcript.