Donald Trump’s White House Accord on Super Intelligence looks set to join a long line of ineffectual calls for self-regulation from the tech industry.
Articles on AI safety
Displaying 1 - 20 of 36 articles
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argues for slowing the pace of AI development globally. We must use this time to learn how to anticipate, and test for, future threats.
As AI agents become more autonomous, keeping them aligned with what humans want will require layered oversight and effective control.
These priorities are mostly old policy initiatives that have until now been de-prioritised for months or even years.
AI’s risks and harms are already affecting Australians. There are new ones coming.
AI systems can now improve themselves by themselves. Is this the dawn of machine superintelligence?
The costs of building advanced, cutting-edge AI are prohibitive and Australia has few natural advantages.
An “export control directive” for Anthropic’s Fable and Mythos models highlights the chaotic, fast-changing state of AI regulation.
The executive order is voluntary for AI companies but aligns with AI safety experts on the potential for harm.
Authoritarian governments, including the Trump administration, are reorienting AI safety provisions away from protecting the public toward coercing support for the regime.
Once powerful AI models are released, it’s nearly impossible to keep them from being misused. Minimizing the risk means making safety the top priority in developing the systems.
A new AI model could automate the process of searching for cybersecurity bugs and flaws – for better or worse.
AI systems began a major shift in 2025 from content creators and chatbots to agents capable of using other software tools and acting on their own.
Without dedicated AI regulation, Australia will leave the most vulnerable at risk of harm.
We are not ready for AI more intelligent than ourselves. Here’s why.
Data analytics, putting safety out of bounds for competition, and collaboration among industry, labor and government are key to reducing a technology’s risks.
Research reveals why simple prompts can bypass AI safeguards.
Measuring the actual effects of using AI systems is no easy task.
Vegans have multiple reasons for spurning animal products: ethical, environmental and health concerns. The same issues are keeping some people from using AI.
The tools that are meant to help make AI safer could actually make it much more dangerous.
Top contributors
-
Professor of AI, Research Group Leader, UNSW
-
Director, Centre of Human Anatomy Education, Monash University
-
Research Fellow at Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne
-
Associate Professor of Social Work and Chair, Indigenous Research Ethics Advisory Panel, Australian Catholic University
-
Professor of Law, University of Sydney
-
Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology
-
Senior Research Fellow – Responsible AI Lead, AI and Cyber Futures Institute, Charles Sturt University
-
Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Applied Ethics and CyberSecurity, Griffith University
-
Associate Professor in Psychology, The University of Melbourne
-
Affiliated Faculty Member, Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy and Technology, Carnegie Mellon University
-
Head, Policy Lab, Human Technology Institute, University of Technology Sydney
-
Director, University of Technology Sydney
-
Established Professor of Computer Science & Head of Machine Learning Research Group, School of Computer Science, University of Galway
-
Lecturer in Technology and Crime, Griffith University
-
Senior Lecturer in Computer Science, School of Computer Science, University of Galway