Search

As frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems become more capable, it becomes more important that developers can explain why their systems are sufficiently safe. One way to do so is via safety cases: reports that make a structured argument, supported by evidence, that a system is safe enough in a given operational context. Safety cases are already common in other safety-critical industries such as aviation and nuclear power. In this paper, we explain why they may also be a useful tool in frontier AI governance, both in industry self-regulation and government regulation. We then discuss the practicalities of safety cases, outlining how to produce a frontier AI safety case and discussing what still needs to happen before safety cases can substantially inform decisions., Comment: 25 pages, 6 figures, 5 tables

Several jurisdictions are starting to regulate frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems, i.e. general-purpose AI systems that match or exceed the capabilities present in the most advanced systems. To reduce risks from these systems, regulators may require frontier AI developers to adopt safety measures. The requirements could be formulated as high-level principles (e.g. 'AI systems should be safe and secure') or specific rules (e.g. 'AI systems must be evaluated for dangerous model capabilities following the protocol set forth in...'). These regulatory approaches, known as 'principle-based' and 'rule-based' regulation, have complementary strengths and weaknesses. While specific rules provide more certainty and are easier to enforce, they can quickly become outdated and lead to box-ticking. Conversely, while high-level principles provide less certainty and are more costly to enforce, they are more adaptable and more appropriate in situations where the regulator is unsure exactly what behavior would best advance a given regulatory objective. However, rule-based and principle-based regulation are not binary options. Policymakers must choose a point on the spectrum between them, recognizing that the right level of specificity may vary between requirements and change over time. We recommend that policymakers should initially (1) mandate adherence to high-level principles for safe frontier AI development and deployment, (2) ensure that regulators closely oversee how developers comply with these principles, and (3) urgently build up regulatory capacity. Over time, the approach should likely become more rule-based. Our recommendations are based on a number of assumptions, including (A) risks from frontier AI systems are poorly understood and rapidly evolving, (B) many safety practices are still nascent, and (C) frontier AI developers are best placed to innovate on safety practices., Comment: Forthcoming in P Hacker, A Engel, S Hammer and B Mittelstadt (eds), The Oxford Handbook on the Foundations and Regulation of Generative AI (Oxford University Press)

Frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems could pose increasing risks to public safety and security. But what level of risk is acceptable? One increasingly popular approach is to define capability thresholds, which describe AI capabilities beyond which an AI system is deemed to pose too much risk. A more direct approach is to define risk thresholds that simply state how much risk would be too much. For instance, they might state that the likelihood of cybercriminals using an AI system to cause X amount of economic damage must not increase by more than Y percentage points. The main upside of risk thresholds is that they are more principled than capability thresholds, but the main downside is that they are more difficult to evaluate reliably. For this reason, we currently recommend that companies (1) define risk thresholds to provide a principled foundation for their decision-making, (2) use these risk thresholds to help set capability thresholds, and then (3) primarily rely on capability thresholds to make their decisions. Regulators should also explore the area because, ultimately, they are the most legitimate actors to define risk thresholds. If AI risk estimates become more reliable, risk thresholds should arguably play an increasingly direct role in decision-making., Comment: 24 pages, 6 figures, 1 table

Regulators in the US and EU are using thresholds based on training compute--the number of computational operations used in training--to identify general-purpose artificial intelligence (GPAI) models that may pose risks of large-scale societal harm. We argue that training compute currently is the most suitable metric to identify GPAI models that deserve regulatory oversight and further scrutiny. Training compute correlates with model capabilities and risks, is quantifiable, can be measured early in the AI lifecycle, and can be verified by external actors, among other advantageous features. These features make compute thresholds considerably more suitable than other proposed metrics to serve as an initial filter to trigger additional regulatory requirements and scrutiny. However, training compute is an imperfect proxy for risk. As such, compute thresholds should not be used in isolation to determine appropriate mitigation measures. Instead, they should be used to detect potentially risky GPAI models that warrant regulatory oversight, such as through notification requirements, and further scrutiny, such as via model evaluations and risk assessments, the results of which may inform which mitigation measures are appropriate. In fact, this appears largely consistent with how compute thresholds are used today. As GPAI technology and market structures evolve, regulators should update compute thresholds and complement them with other metrics into regulatory review processes., Comment: v2: Major revision of earlier working paper

Recent decisions by leading AI labs to either open-source their models or to restrict access to their models has sparked debate about whether, and how, increasingly capable AI models should be shared. Open-sourcing in AI typically refers to making model architecture and weights freely and publicly accessible for anyone to modify, study, build on, and use. This offers advantages such as enabling external oversight, accelerating progress, and decentralizing control over AI development and use. However, it also presents a growing potential for misuse and unintended consequences. This paper offers an examination of the risks and benefits of open-sourcing highly capable foundation models. While open-sourcing has historically provided substantial net benefits for most software and AI development processes, we argue that for some highly capable foundation models likely to be developed in the near future, open-sourcing may pose sufficiently extreme risks to outweigh the benefits. In such a case, highly capable foundation models should not be open-sourced, at least not initially. Alternative strategies, including non-open-source model sharing options, are explored. The paper concludes with recommendations for developers, standard-setting bodies, and governments for establishing safe and responsible model sharing practices and preserving open-source benefits where safe., Comment: Official release at https://www.governance.ai/research-paper/open-sourcing-highly-capable-foundation-models

Companies like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic have the stated goal of building artificial general intelligence (AGI) - AI systems that perform as well as or better than humans on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. However, there are increasing concerns that AGI would pose catastrophic risks. In light of this, AGI companies need to drastically improve their risk management practices. To support such efforts, this paper reviews popular risk assessment techniques from other safety-critical industries and suggests ways in which AGI companies could use them to assess catastrophic risks from AI. The paper discusses three risk identification techniques (scenario analysis, fishbone method, and risk typologies and taxonomies), five risk analysis techniques (causal mapping, Delphi technique, cross-impact analysis, bow tie analysis, and system-theoretic process analysis), and two risk evaluation techniques (checklists and risk matrices). For each of them, the paper explains how they work, suggests ways in which AGI companies could use them, discusses their benefits and limitations, and makes recommendations. Finally, the paper discusses when to conduct risk assessments, when to use which technique, and how to use any of them. The reviewed techniques will be obvious to risk management professionals in other industries. And they will not be sufficient to assess catastrophic risks from AI. However, AGI companies should not skip the straightforward step of reviewing best practices from other industries., Comment: 44 pages, 13 figures, 9 tables