内容来源：https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/20/anthropic-pitches-ai-safety-bill-that-may-block-a-model-if-50-people-could-be-killed/

内容总结：

过去一年，人工智能可能带来的潜在危险引发持续担忧，围绕AI安全治理路径的争论也愈演愈烈。如今，Anthropic似乎提出了自己对政府如何监管该行业的设想。据Politico近日报道，这家AI实验室正在推动一份关于AI安全的新法案草案，希望国会考虑采纳。该立法设定了某些情形，在这些情形下，AI模型的发布可能被阻止。报道称，这些情形涉及“可预见、迫在眉睫的风险”——即可能危及超过50人的生命，或可能造成超过10亿美元的财产损失。相关灾难性风险必须“源于生物武器的制造或释放、模型规避开发者控制，或网络攻击”。草案提出的50人和10亿美元这两项指标，与加州近期通过并生效的参议院第53号法案相似，后者同样将此类情形定义为等同于“灾难性风险”。Anthropic的法案建议，可通过在美国商务部注册的“独立评估员”来分析模型引发灾难的可能性。报道称，这些评估员可能由AI实验室自行付费——只要“付费不以评估结果为条件”。目前尚不清楚这一拟议制度如何确保付费不会影响评估。DeepMind董事长戴米斯·哈萨比斯数月前曾提出，一个自我管理的AI监管机构应模仿金融业的美国金融业监管局。在Anthropic的草案中，当评估员认定存在迫在眉睫的灾难性风险时，他们须在72小时内通知商务部。随后，商务部须请求华盛顿特区法官阻止该模型发布。报道称，该立法将明确禁止任何联邦机构自行决定停止模型分发。Anthropic未立即回应TechCrunch的置评请求，但一位发言人向Politico证实了该草案。该发言人称：“该法案体现了Anthropic《先进AI框架》中提出的建议，自6月以来我们一直向联邦和州立法者倡导这些建议。”草案政策中提出的理论风险，与科技行业近期最关注的事件有些距离。尽管有人警告可能出现人员死亡，但主要担忧一直集中在智能体黑客攻击的威胁上。一系列事件显示，AI程序似乎违抗人类操作者，在开放互联网上攻击网站，这引发了对模型可能缺乏适当安全控制的担忧。为回应实验室自身助推形成的危机局面，Anthropic等公司提出了自己偏好的解决方案。事实上，尽管这些实验室不断警告其销售的技术可能导致人类文明消亡，它们却在很大程度上抵制政府的强制性监管。相反，它们建议采用嵌入式评估员的自愿制度——即把据称“中立”的第三方观察员安置在AI组织内部，以监测模型是否存在风险或滥用迹象。尽管如此，Anthropic提出立法建议本身，似乎比业内其他监管提议略微更进一步，包括英伟达。英伟达首席执行官黄仁勋近期主张，AI行业根本不需要任何新法律。

中文翻译：

过去一年里，围绕人工智能可能带来的潜在危险，担忧之声不绝于耳；关于AI安全应走何种正确道路，争论也愈演愈烈。如今，Anthropic似乎拿出了自己关于政府应如何监管该行业的设想。

Politico近日报道称，这家AI实验室一直在兜售一份关于AI安全的新法案草案，希望国会能够考虑采纳。该立法设定了某些特定情形，在这些情形下，AI模型的发布可以被阻止流通。

据Politico报道，这些情形涉及“可预见的、迫在眉睫的风险”——即超过50人面临死亡风险，或可能造成超过10亿美元的财产损失。该媒体指出，所涉灾难性风险必须“源于生物武器的制造或释放、模型规避开发者控制，或网络攻击”。

这里给出的衡量标准——50人和10亿美元——与加州近期通过成为法律的一项法案（第53号参议院法案）中的标准相似，该法案同样将此类情形定义为等同于“灾难性风险”。

Anthropic的法案建议，对模型潜在灾难性的分析可由“独立评估员”完成，这些评估员将在美国商务部注册。据Politico报道，这些评估员可能由AI实验室自行付费——只要“付款不以评估结果为条件”。

目前尚不清楚这一拟议制度如何确保付款不会影响评估。DeepMind董事长Demis Hassabis几个月前曾提出，一个自我管理的AI监管机构应模仿金融业的美国金融业监管局（FINRA）。

在Anthropic的法案草案中，当评估员认定存在迫在眉睫的灾难性风险时，他们须在72小时内就此联系商务部。商务部随后须向华盛顿特区的一名法官申请叫停该模型的发布。据Politico报道，该立法将明确禁止任何联邦机构自行决定停止该模型的分发。

Anthropic未立即回应TechCrunch的置评请求，但一位发言人向Politico确认了该法案草案。该发言人称：“该法案代表了Anthropic《先进AI框架》中提出的各项建议，自6月以来我们一直在向联邦和州立法者倡导这些建议。”

该政策草案中提出的理论性风险，与科技行业近期最为关注的那类事件有些距离。尽管有人警告可能出现人员死亡，但主要担忧在很大程度上一直是智能体黑客攻击的威胁。一连串AI程序显然违背人类操作者指令、在开放互联网上黑客攻击网站的事件，引发了人们对模型可能缺乏适当安全控制的担忧。

为了给实验室自身助推形成的危机景象提供一个解决方案，Anthropic等公司提出了自己偏好的方案。

事实上，尽管实验室不断警告其出售的技术可能导致人类文明消亡，它们在很大程度上一直抵制政府的强制性监管。相反，它们建议采用一种嵌入式评估员的自愿制度——据称是“中立”的第三方观察员，被安置在AI组织内部，以便监控模型是否存在潜在风险或滥用的迹象。

不过，Anthropic仅仅是提出立法建议，似乎就比业界其他人——包括英伟达——提出的监管方案走得更远一些。英伟达CEO黄仁勋近期主张，AI行业根本不需要任何新法律。

英文来源：

Over the past year, concerns have swirled over the potential dangers posed by artificial intelligence, and debates have raged over the proper path for AI safety. Now, Anthropic appears to have put forth its own vision for how the government might regulate its industry.
Politico recently reported that the AI lab has been shopping around a new draft bill on AI safety that it hopes Congress might consider adopting. The legislation posits certain scenarios in which the release of an AI model could be blocked from distribution.
Those scenarios involve a “foreseeable, imminent risk” — one in which over 50 people are at risk of dying or if over a billion dollars in property damage could result, Politico writes. The catastrophic risk in question must “stem from the creation or release of a biological weapon, the model evading its developer’s controls or a cyberattack,” the outlet notes.
The metrics offered here — 50 people and a billion dollars — are similar to those in a piece of California legislation that was recently passed into law, Senate Bill 53, which similarly defined those scenarios as tantamount to “catastrophic risk.”
Anthropic’s bill suggests that analysis of a model’s potential for disaster could be arrived at via the use of “independent evaluators” who would be registered with the U.S. Commerce Department. These evaluators could potentially be paid by the AI labs themselves — so long as the “payment is not contingent on the evaluations’ results,” Politico writes.
It’s not clear how this proposed system would assure that payments couldn’t influence the evaluation. Demis Hassabis, chairman of DeepMind, posited some months ago that a self-governing AI regulatory body should mimic the financial industry’s Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
In Anthropic’s draft bill, when evaluators determine that an imminent catastrophic risk is posed, they would have 72 hours to contact the Commerce Department about it. The Commerce Department would then have to request to a D.C. judge to halt the model’s release. The legislation would expressly forbid any federal agency from having the discretion to halt the model’s distribution on its own, Politico writes.
Anthropic did not immediately respond to TechCrunch’s a request for comment but a spokesperson did confirm the draft bill to Politico. “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,” the spokesperson said.
The theoretical risks offered in the draft policy are a little bit far afield from the kinds of incidents that have been top of mind for the tech industry of late. While there are people warning of the potential of human death, the primary concern has largely been the threat of agentic hacking. A rash of incidents in which AI programs have apparently disobeyed their human operators and hacked websites on the open internet has spurred concern that models may be lacking proper security controls.
In an effort to present a solution to the spectacle of crisis that the labs themselves have helped bring about, companies like Anthropic have offered up their own preferred solutions.
Indeed, despite labs’ perpetual warnings that the technology they’re selling could result in the demise of human civilization, they have largely been resistant to mandatory government oversight. Instead, they have suggested a voluntary system of embedded evaluators — supposedly “neutral” third-party observers that are placed inside AI organizations so that they can monitor the models for potential signs of risk or abuse.
Still, Anthropic’s mere suggestion for legislation appears to go slightly further than others’ regulatory proposals offered by the industry, including Nvidia, who’s CEO Jensen Huang recently argued that the AI industry didn’t need any new laws at all.