Stuart Russell
Sources used: First-hand material.
The map position is our interpretation of the public statements below. Read the method.
Position, range and evidence details
Preferred pace: -50; stated catastrophic-risk concern: 75. These are layout units, not percentages or rankings.
Pace range: -80 to -15; concern range: 50 to 95. Ranges show alternative editorial interpretations, not statistical confidence intervals.
Evidence clarity: medium. Basis: primary. Implementation: public-advocacy.
Record status: Published record
What this status means
This is a published Atlas record with no open challenge recorded in this edition. It is not a guarantee that the sources are current or the interpretation is correct.
Status recorded: 2026-09-16. This is separate from the source-reading and actor-review dates.
Sources are over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 2
Newest dated source: 2023-12-06
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Open on the map Reading notes · Structured record
What this position covers
Conditional limits on dangerous frontier development and evidence required before release. [1] [2]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What to keep in mind
A coauthored policy proposal and dated testimony support this interpretation. They do not establish a blanket ban or an institutional Berkeley position. [1] [2]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What they say about the pace of AI
Coauthors conditional development halts pending adequate protections. [1]
Find the passage in the source
Mitigation
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What they say about catastrophic risk
His testimony warns that AGI without reliable human control could threaten human survival. [2]
Find the passage in the source
Executive summary
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
The wider picture
Calls for enforceable safety conditions and warns about loss of human control. [1] [2]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
What the conditions mean
His testimony puts the burden on developers to show safety before release. It also discusses present harms; concern about catastrophe does not replace those issues. [2]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
Share this page
https://theaiatlas.org/people/russell/
Download a share image · Vector image
Image previews are summaries. Keep the page link so readers can check the evidence.
Sources and what we read
1. Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress (version 3)
Source is over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2023-10-26
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Read authors, societal-scale risks and governance/mitigation sections of version 3. Coauthorship supports a shared proposal, not identical personal beliefs or a present-day forecast.
2. Written statement for the Senate AI Forum on Risk, Alignment, & Guarding Against Doomsday Scenarios
Source is over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2023-12-06
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Read executive summary and control-risk discussion. The document is dated December 6 and draws on earlier July testimony; the July date is not this document's date.
Edition and machine-readable evidence
Content version 0.22.0. Evidence cutoff 2026-09-16; this does not mean every source was read on that day.
Pinned complete dataset · Complete evidence page · Agent consumption guide