AI

Carine Smith Ihenacho, chief governance and compliance officer of Norway’s $1.7 trillion sovereign wealth fund, emphasized the need for boards to be proficient in AI and take control of its application within businesses to mitigate risks. The Norges Bank Investment Fund, holding significant shares in nearly 9,000 companies globally—amounting to 1.5% of all listed stocks—has led in environmental, social, and corporate governance issues. About a year ago, the fund advised its invested companies on integrating responsible AI to enhance economic outcomes. However, many companies still need to make significant progress. Smith Ihenacho noted that while boards need to build competence in AI, this doesn’t mean every board requires an AI specialist. Instead, boards should collectively understand the relevance of AI to their business and establish appropriate policies. The fund’s focus on AI governance is especially pertinent, as nine of its ten largest equity holdings are in tech companies, including major names like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Meta Platforms. Investments in these firms drove a 12.5% growth in the fund’s stock portfolio during the first half of 2024. Over the past year, the fund’s exposure to the tech sector rose from 21% to 26%, with technology now making up a quarter of the stock portfolio. This highlights the crucial role that technology and AI play in today’s world.

OpenAI has joined a growing number of tech leaders and politicians in opposing California’s controversial AI safety bill, SB 1047. The company argues that the bill could hinder innovation and believes AI regulation should be handled federally. In a letter to California State Senator Scott Wiener, OpenAI expressed concerns that SB 1047 could have “broad and significant” effects on U.S. competitiveness and national security, potentially driving talent away from California. The bill, introduced by Wiener, aims to establish “common sense safety standards” for companies developing large AI models. These standards include implementing shut-down mechanisms, taking precautions to prevent catastrophic outcomes, and submitting compliance reports to the California attorney general. Non-compliance could result in lawsuits and penalties. Lieutenant General John Shanahan, former director of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), supports the bill, saying it addresses the serious risks AI poses to national security. Hon. Andrew C. Weber, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, also emphasized the importance of protecting AI systems from potential adversaries and praised the bill’s cybersecurity measures. However, SB 1047 has faced strong opposition from tech companies, startups, and venture capitalists, who argue it overreaches and could stifle innovation. OpenAI has reportedly paused plans to expand its San Francisco offices due to the uncertain regulatory environment. Senator Wiener defended the bill, dismissing concerns about a talent exodus and arguing that the law would apply to any company doing business in California. He also noted that the bill’s requirement for large AI labs to test for catastrophic risks is “highly reasonable.” In response to criticism, Wiener recently amended the bill to eliminate criminal liability for non-compliance and protect smaller developers. OpenAI contends that a federal framework, rather than state-level regulation, is crucial for maintaining public safety while ensuring U.S. competitiveness against countries like China. The company believes federal agencies like the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Commerce are better suited to manage AI risks. Senator Wiener acknowledged the preference for federal action but expressed doubt about its likelihood, citing California’s history of leading in areas like data privacy in the absence of federal legislation. The California state assembly is expected to vote on SB 1047 this month. If passed, the bill will go to Governor Gavin Newsom, whose position on the legislation is still unclear, though he has recognized the need to balance AI innovation with risk management.