Summary Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safety arxiv.org
24,807 words - PDF document - View PDF document
One Line
The proposed regulation for "frontier AI" models involves standard-setting processes, registration/reporting requirements, and compliance mechanisms, while facing challenges in defining AI and managing risks.
Slides
Slide Presentation (10 slides)
Key Points
- Frontier AI models possess dangerous capabilities that pose risks to public safety and require regulation.
- Building blocks for regulating frontier AI models include standard-setting processes, registration and reporting requirements, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with safety standards.
- Industry self-regulation is a first step, but wider societal discussions and government intervention are necessary.
- Initial safety standards for frontier AI models should include pre-deployment risk assessments, external scrutiny of model behavior, using risk assessments to inform deployment decisions, and monitoring and responding to new information about model capabilities.
- Regulating frontier AI models should be part of a broader policy portfolio addressing the risks and benefits of AI.
Summaries
21 word summary
Proposed regulation for "frontier AI" models includes standard-setting processes, registration/reporting requirements, and compliance mechanisms. Challenges include defining AI and mitigating risks.
59 word summary
This paper proposes three building blocks for regulating "frontier AI" models: standard-setting processes, registration and reporting requirements, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with safety standards. Policymakers should establish safety standards, compliance, and visibility. Challenges include defining frontier AI, predicting capabilities, mitigating risks, avoiding regulatory flight, and preventing abuse of power. Research, international cooperation, and responsible AI practices are needed.
146 word summary
This paper focuses on the regulation of "frontier AI" models, proposing three building blocks for regulation: standard-setting processes, registration and reporting requirements, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with safety standards. While industry self-regulation is a first step, wider societal discussions and government intervention will be necessary. Frontier AI models pose unique challenges to public safety, including capabilities overhang and circumvention of safeguards. These models can proliferate rapidly due to open-sourcing and optimized tools. Policymakers should establish building blocks for a regulatory regime, including safety standards, compliance, and visibility. Initial safety standards should include risk assessments. However, more research is needed to improve evaluation methods. The uncertainties and limitations of regulating frontier AI include defining it, predicting capabilities, mitigating risks, avoiding regulatory flight, and preventing abuse of power. Further research, international cooperation, and effective regulatory approaches are needed. Responsible AI practices, transparency, fairness, and accountability are crucial.
487 word summary
This paper focuses on the regulation of "frontier AI" models, which pose severe risks to public safety due to their unpredictable and potentially harmful capabilities. The paper proposes three building blocks for regulating frontier AI models: standard-setting processes, registration and reporting requirements, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with safety standards. While industry self-regulation is a first step, wider societal discussions and government intervention will be necessary to establish and enforce standards.
Frontier AI models present unique challenges for ensuring public safety, including the "capabilities overhang" that allows users to discover new ways to enhance performance and uncover new failure modes long after deployment. Adversarial users have found ways to circumvent safeguards put in place to prevent misuse of AI systems.
These models can proliferate rapidly, as the cost of using a trained model is much cheaper than developing one. Open-sourcing models makes access to their capabilities easier, allowing anyone to copy and use them. Companies may develop tools optimized for use by frontier AI models, further accelerating capability improvements. However, as capabilities advance, there is a risk of dangerous behaviors emerging once a frontier model is deployed "in the wild".
To regulate frontier AI models, policymakers should establish building blocks for a regulatory regime. This includes developing safety standards through multi-stakeholder processes, increasing regulatory visibility into AI development, and ensuring compliance with standards. Self-regulation and certification can incentivize compliance, but more stringent approaches like enforcement by supervisory authorities and licensing may be necessary for high-risk AI activities.
Initial safety standards for frontier AI models should include thorough risk assessments informed by evaluations of dangerous capabilities and controllability. Implementing these safety standards would mitigate risks from frontier AI models and ensure public safety. However, further research and development are needed to improve evaluation methods and make them more precise and effective.
The uncertainties and limitations of regulating frontier AI include defining frontier AI for regulation, predicting the capabilities of advanced models, anticipating and mitigating risks, avoiding regulatory flight, and preventing abuse of government powers. Practical details of implementation, international cooperation, and the balance between regulation and innovation also need further consideration.
In conclusion, the regulation of frontier AI is necessary to address the risks to public safety and global security. Self-regulation, certification, mandates, and licensing can be effective approaches. Clear safety standards and external scrutiny are crucial. Further research and international cooperation are needed to develop effective regulatory approaches.
The text also provides insights into the role of governments and regulatory bodies in overseeing AI development and setting standards. It discusses the importance of collaboration and international cooperation in shaping global AI regulations.
Overall, the text provides a comprehensive overview of the emerging risks and challenges associated with AI, as well as the efforts being made to address these issues through regulations, standards, auditing, and oversight. It highlights the need for responsible AI practices and emphasizes the importance of transparency, fairness, and accountability in AI development and deployment.
556 word summary
This paper focuses on the regulation of "frontier AI" models, which pose severe risks to public safety due to their unpredictable and potentially harmful capabilities. The paper proposes three building blocks for regulating frontier AI models: standard-setting processes, registration and reporting requirements, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with safety standards. While industry self-regulation is a first step, wider societal discussions and government intervention will be necessary to establish and enforce standards.
Frontier AI models present unique challenges for ensuring public safety, including the "capabilities overhang" that allows users to discover new ways to enhance performance and uncover new failure modes long after deployment. It is difficult to precisely specify and control AI models' behavior, making it a largely unsolved technical problem. Adversarial users have found ways to circumvent safeguards put in place to prevent misuse of AI systems.
These models can proliferate rapidly, as the cost of using a trained model is much cheaper than developing one. Open-sourcing models makes access to their capabilities easier, allowing anyone to copy and use them. Companies may develop tools optimized for use by frontier AI models, further accelerating capability improvements. However, as capabilities advance, there is a risk of dangerous behaviors emerging once a frontier model is deployed "in the wild".
To regulate frontier AI models, policymakers should establish building blocks for a regulatory regime. This includes developing safety standards through multi-stakeholder processes, increasing regulatory visibility into AI development, and ensuring compliance with standards. Self-regulation and certification can incentivize compliance, but more stringent approaches like enforcement by supervisory authorities and licensing may be necessary for high-risk AI activities.
Initial safety standards for frontier AI models should include thorough risk assessments informed by evaluations of dangerous capabilities and controllability. Implementing these safety standards would mitigate risks from frontier AI models and ensure public safety. However, further research and development are needed to improve evaluation methods and make them more precise and effective.
Risk assessments should consider contextual factors and the dual-use nature of capabilities. External scrutiny is important to ensure thorough and objective risk assessments. Monitoring and responding to new information on model capabilities is essential. Standardized protocols should be followed for how frontier AI models are deployed based on their assessed risk.
The uncertainties and limitations of regulating frontier AI include defining frontier AI for regulation, predicting the capabilities of advanced models, anticipating and mitigating risks, avoiding regulatory flight, and preventing abuse of government powers. Practical details of implementation, international cooperation, and the balance between regulation and innovation also need further consideration.
In conclusion, the regulation of frontier AI is necessary to address the risks to public safety and global security. Self-regulation, certification, mandates, and licensing can be effective approaches. Clear safety standards and external scrutiny are crucial. Further research and international cooperation are needed to develop effective regulatory approaches.
The text also provides insights into the role of governments and regulatory bodies in overseeing AI development and setting standards. It discusses the importance of collaboration and international cooperation in shaping global AI regulations.
Overall, the text provides a comprehensive overview of the emerging risks and challenges associated with AI, as well as the efforts being made to address these issues through regulations, standards, auditing, and oversight. It highlights the need for responsible AI practices and emphasizes the importance of transparency, fairness, and accountability in AI development and deployment.
1595 word summary
This paper focuses on the regulation of "frontier AI" models, which are highly capable foundation models that could possess dangerous capabilities sufficient to pose severe risks to public safety. These models present a distinct regulatory challenge due to their unpredictable and potentially harmful capabilities, the difficulty of preventing misuse of deployed models, and the rapid proliferation of these models. The paper proposes three building blocks for regulating frontier AI models: standard-setting processes, registration and reporting requirements, and mechanisms for ensuring compliance with safety standards. While industry self-regulation is a first step, wider societal discussions and government intervention will be necessary to establish and enforce standards. The paper suggests options such as granting enforcement powers to supervisory authorities and implementing licensure regimes for frontier AI models. Furthermore, an initial set of safety standards is proposed, including pre-deployment risk assessments, external scrutiny of model behavior, using risk assessments to inform deployment decisions, and monitoring and responding to new information about model capabilities. The goal is to balance public safety risks with the benefits of AI innovation. The capabilities of today's foundation models have demonstrated significant potential for benefiting society in various fields. However, there are concerns about the risks posed by these models and the potential risks of future AI advancements. The paper highlights the need for government involvement in ensuring that frontier AI models are harnessed in the public interest. It identifies three factors that suggest targeted regulation is necessary for frontier AI development: the unexpected and difficult-to-detect dangerous capabilities that can arise, the challenges of preventing deployed models from causing harm, and the rapid proliferation of these models. The paper proposes mechanisms for regulating frontier AI models, including the development of safety standards through multi-stakeholder processes, increased regulatory visibility into development processes, and ensuring compliance with safety standards. Self-regulatory efforts may not be sufficient, and government intervention may be required through enforcement powers or licensing regimes. The paper outlines an initial set of safety standards for frontier AI development, including thorough risk assessments, external scrutiny of models, standardized protocols for deployment based on assessed risk, and monitoring and responding to new information about model capabilities. The regulation of frontier AI models should be part of a broader policy portfolio addressing the wide range of risks and benefits of AI. The paper concludes by acknowledging uncertainties and limitations and emphasizing the need for a more informed and concrete discussion on governing advanced AI systems. The authors express their gratitude to individuals who provided feedback and input on the ideas presented in this paper.
The development and deployment of frontier AI models pose unique challenges for ensuring public safety. One challenge is the "capabilities overhang" of these models, as users discover new ways to enhance performance and uncover new failure modes long after deployment. Users have demonstrated creativity in eliciting new capabilities from AI models, exceeding developers' expectations. It is difficult to precisely specify and control AI models' behavior, making it a largely unsolved technical problem. Adversarial users have found ways to circumvent safeguards put in place to prevent misuse of AI systems.
Frontier AI models can proliferate rapidly, as the cost of using a trained model is much cheaper than developing one. Open-sourcing models makes access to their capabilities easier, allowing anyone to copy and use them. Companies may develop tools optimized for use by frontier AI models, further accelerating capability improvements. However, as capabilities advance, there is a risk of dangerous behaviors emerging once a frontier model is deployed "in the wild".
To regulate frontier AI models, policymakers should establish building blocks for a regulatory regime. This includes developing safety standards through multi-stakeholder processes, increasing regulatory visibility into AI development, and ensuring compliance with standards. Self-regulation and certification can incentivize compliance, but more stringent approaches like enforcement by supervisory authorities and licensing may be necessary for high-risk AI activities. However, regulatory action should be balanced to avoid stifling innovation and burdening smaller organizations.
Initial safety standards for frontier AI models should include thorough risk assessments informed by evaluations of dangerous capabilities and controllability. Evaluations should be standardized, objective, efficient, privacy-preserving, automatable, safe, strongly indicative of dangerous capabilities, and grounded in legitimate governance sources. Evaluations for controllability should assess the extent to which models reliably do what their users or developers intend.
Implementing these safety standards would mitigate risks from frontier AI models and ensure public safety. However, further research and development are needed to improve evaluation methods and make them more precise and effective. Governments should invest in expertise in AI and prioritize the development of standards, while also considering the potential downsides of premature regulation. The regulatory regime should be adaptable, minimize regulatory burdens, and focus on what is necessary to meet policy objectives.
A recent expert survey found that 98% of respondents agreed that AGI labs should conduct pre-deployment risk assessments and dangerous capabilities evaluations. They also agreed that pre-training risk assessments should be conducted. Common benchmarks for evaluating AI capabilities include the inverse scaling law. Evaluations should assess whether models hallucinate or produce toxic content unintentionally. Model harmlessness, including robustness to adversarial attempts, should also be assessed. Evaluations of controllability should assess the causes of model behavior to understand potential manipulative capabilities. Scalable tooling and efficient techniques are needed to audit model behavior and minimize the risk of AI undermining human control.
Risk assessments should consider contextual factors and the dual-use nature of capabilities. Understanding interactions between AI models and wider systems is crucial. Risk assessments should also account for possible defenses and the decreasing riskiness of AI models as society's capability to manage risks improves. Safe AI models can make society more robust to harms from emerging technologies.
External scrutiny is important to ensure thorough and objective risk assessments. Third-party audits of risk assessment procedures and outputs and engaging external expert red-teamers can provide independent scrutiny. Clear protocols should be established based on the assessed risk profile of the AI model to determine its deployment rules.
Monitoring and responding to new information on model capabilities is essential. Post-deployment information can indicate increased risk and necessitate reassessment and updates to deployment restrictions if necessary. Regular repeat risk assessments, incident reporting, and impact monitoring can help in continuous risk assessment.
Standardized protocols should be followed for how frontier AI models are deployed based on their assessed risk. Clear protocols should be established to determine deployment rules based on the risk profile of the model. The deployment of models with severe risks should be prohibited, while safe use-cases should be identified and guarded with deployment guardrails.
The uncertainties and limitations of regulating frontier AI include defining frontier AI for regulation, predicting the capabilities of advanced models, anticipating and mitigating risks, avoiding regulatory flight, and preventing abuse of government powers. Practical details of implementation, international cooperation, and the balance between regulation and innovation also need further consideration.
In conclusion, the regulation of frontier AI is necessary to address the risks to public safety and global security. Self-regulation, certification, mandates, and licensing can be effective approaches. Clear safety standards and external scrutiny are crucial. Monitoring model capabilities and updating restrictions based on new information is essential. Further research and international cooperation are needed to develop effective regulatory approaches.
This document provides a comprehensive overview of various papers and resources related to managing emerging risks to public safety in the context of artificial intelligence (AI). The text includes references to academic papers, research studies, and industry reports that cover a wide range of topics, including AI in the legal system, contracts and smart readers, predicting consumer contracts, AI in education, tackling climate change with machine learning, reducing data center cooling bills with AI, carbon capture and sequestration, machine learning for sustainable energy systems, AI applications in combating pandemics, early warning systems for global pandemics, risks and opportunities of foundation models, dual use of AI-powered drug discovery, the alignment problem in deep learning, advanced artificial agents in reward provision, unsolved problems in ML safety, X-risk analysis for AI research, power-seeking AI as an existential risk, human compatible AI, regulations on artificial intelligence, challenges in managing emerging risks to public safety, and much more.
The text also mentions specific documents and reports that provide insights into the risks and challenges associated with AI development and deployment. It includes links to resources such as the proposal for a regulation on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), the GPT-4 Technical Report, the GPT-4 System Card, and various other research papers and articles.
The summary highlights the importance of responsible AI practices and the need for regulations and standards to govern AI development and deployment. It emphasizes the role of auditing and third-party oversight in ensuring the safety and ethical use of AI systems. The text also discusses the concept of risk cards and system cards as tools for evaluating and understanding AI models.
Furthermore, the summary touches upon the issues of bias, fairness, and disinformation in AI systems, as well as the challenges of explainability and interpretability. It mentions the need for transparency in AI systems and the importance of addressing societal impacts.
The text also provides insights into the role of governments and regulatory bodies in overseeing AI development and setting standards. It discusses the importance of collaboration and international cooperation in shaping global AI regulations.
Overall, the text provides a comprehensive overview of the emerging risks and challenges associated with AI, as well as the efforts being made to address these issues through regulations, standards, auditing, and oversight. It highlights the need for responsible AI practices and emphasizes the importance of transparency, fairness, and accountability in AI development and deployment.