Governing Through the Cloud: The Intermediary Role of Compute Providers in AI Regulation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08501v2
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:23:30 GMT
- Title: Governing Through the Cloud: The Intermediary Role of Compute Providers in AI Regulation
- Authors: Lennart Heim, Tim Fist, Janet Egan, Sihao Huang, Stephen Zekany, Robert Trager, Michael A Osborne, Noa Zilberman,
- Abstract summary: We argue that compute providers should have legal obligations and ethical responsibilities associated with AI development and deployment.
Compute providers can play an essential role in a regulatory ecosystem via four key capacities.
- Score: 14.704747149179047
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: As jurisdictions around the world take their first steps toward regulating the most powerful AI systems, such as the EU AI Act and the US Executive Order 14110, there is a growing need for effective enforcement mechanisms that can verify compliance and respond to violations. We argue that compute providers should have legal obligations and ethical responsibilities associated with AI development and deployment, both to provide secure infrastructure and to serve as intermediaries for AI regulation. Compute providers can play an essential role in a regulatory ecosystem via four key capacities: as securers, safeguarding AI systems and critical infrastructure; as record keepers, enhancing visibility for policymakers; as verifiers of customer activities, ensuring oversight; and as enforcers, taking actions against rule violations. We analyze the technical feasibility of performing these functions in a targeted and privacy-conscious manner and present a range of technical instruments. In particular, we describe how non-confidential information, to which compute providers largely already have access, can provide two key governance-relevant properties of a computational workload: its type-e.g., large-scale training or inference-and the amount of compute it has consumed. Using AI Executive Order 14110 as a case study, we outline how the US is beginning to implement record keeping requirements for compute providers. We also explore how verification and enforcement roles could be added to establish a comprehensive AI compute oversight scheme. We argue that internationalization will be key to effective implementation, and highlight the critical challenge of balancing confidentiality and privacy with risk mitigation as the role of compute providers in AI regulation expands.
Related papers
- Assistive AI for Augmenting Human Decision-making [3.379906135388703]
The paper shows how AI can assist in the complex process of decision-making while maintaining human oversight.
Central to our framework are the principles of privacy, accountability, and credibility.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-18T10:16:07Z) - Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act)
Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence.
As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z) - From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditing [1.196505602609637]
Audits can take many forms, including pre-deployment risk assessments, ongoing monitoring, and compliance testing.
There are many operational challenges to AI auditing that complicate its implementation.
We argue that auditing can be cast as a natural hypothesis test, draw parallels hypothesis testing and legal procedure, and argue that this framing provides clear and interpretable guidance on audit implementation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-07T06:15:46Z) - The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview [0.0]
This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act.
It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689.
The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-30T21:38:02Z) - Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems.
We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts.
We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z) - Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation [0.0]
Within the global governance of AI, the requirement for human oversight is embodied in several regulatory formats.
The EU legislator is therefore going much further than in the past in "spelling out" the legal requirement for human oversight.
The question of the place of humans in the AI decision-making process should be given particular attention.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-02T07:43:46Z) - Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence [51.967584623262674]
Governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI.
compute-based policies and technologies have the potential to assist in these areas, but there is significant variation in their readiness for implementation.
naive or poorly scoped approaches to compute governance carry significant risks in areas like privacy, economic impacts, and centralization of power.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-13T21:10:21Z) - The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage.
Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z) - Oversight for Frontier AI through a Know-Your-Customer Scheme for
Compute Providers [0.8547032097715571]
Know-Your-Customer (KYC) is a standard developed by the banking sector to identify and verify client identity.
KYC could provide a mechanism for greater public oversight of frontier AI development and close loopholes in existing export controls.
Unlike the strategy of limiting access to AI chip purchases, regulating the digital access to compute offers more precise controls.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-20T16:17:29Z) - Trustworthy AI Inference Systems: An Industry Research View [58.000323504158054]
We provide an industry research view for approaching the design, deployment, and operation of trustworthy AI inference systems.
We highlight opportunities and challenges in AI systems using trusted execution environments.
We outline areas of further development that require the global collective attention of industry, academia, and government researchers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-10T23:05:55Z) - Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable
Claims [59.64274607533249]
AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable.
This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems.
We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.