what's wrong with having a technology that actually employs people in the United States of America and pays them well?

I think your point, Mr. Amodei, about securing our supply chains is absolutely critical.

Let me get at this problem from a slightly different angle, which is, let's imagine a hypothetical in which the Communist government of Beijing decides to launch an invasion of Taiwan.

What's sad about that scenario is, that would be the best-case scenario.

I missed a series of rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 365 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 366. ____________________

I appreciate that you want your models to be ethical and so forth. That's great.

I am totally in agreement with Senator Hawley in focusing on keeping it in America, made in America.

The workers on the project were paid, on average, between $1.46 an hour and $3.74 an hour.

That seems like an old, old story that I frankly don't want to see replicated again.

This has been a tremendously helpful hearing. I just want to thank each of you, again, for taking the time to be here.

It seems to me that your technology melded with theirs could make them an enormous sum of money. That would be great for them. Would it be so good for the American consumer?

Should we also require monetary compensation if AI companies want to use individual data in their model in some way?

I think, to focus people's minds on the biorisks, I would really target 2025, 2026, maybe even some chance of 2024.

Should we also require monetary compensation if AI companies want to use individual data in their model in some way?

This would be Google's interest. Right? Above all, profits.

Don't you think that that would be frightening?

I think the path that things are going, in terms of the scaling of open source models, I think it's going down a very dangerous path.

It's been a privilege to get to work with him. These have been incredibly substantive hearings.