Coordinated Disclosure of Dual-Use Capabilities: An Early Warning System for Advanced AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.01420v3
• Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 19:06:02 GMT
• Title: Coordinated Disclosure of Dual-Use Capabilities: An Early Warning System for Advanced AI
• Authors: Joe O'Brien, Shaun Ee, Jam Kraprayoon, Bill Anderson-Samways, Oscar Delaney, Zoe Williams,
• Abstract summary: We propose Coordinated Disclosure of Dual-Use Capabilities (CDDC) as a process to guide early information-sharing between advanced AI developers, U.S. government agencies, and other private sector actors. This aims to provide the U.S. government, dual-use foundation model developers, and other actors with an overview of AI capabilities that could significantly impact public safety and security, as well as maximal time to respond.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Advanced AI systems may be developed which exhibit capabilities that present significant risks to public safety or security. They may also exhibit capabilities that may be applied defensively in a wide set of domains, including (but not limited to) developing societal resilience against AI threats. We propose Coordinated Disclosure of Dual-Use Capabilities (CDDC) as a process to guide early information-sharing between advanced AI developers, US government agencies, and other private sector actors about these capabilities. The process centers around an information clearinghouse (the "coordinator") which receives evidence of dual-use capabilities from finders via mandatory and/or voluntary reporting pathways, and passes noteworthy reports to defenders for follow-up (i.e., further analysis and response). This aims to provide the US government, dual-use foundation model developers, and other actors with an overview of AI capabilities that could significantly impact public safety and security, as well as maximal time to respond.

Related papers

• AI threats to national security can be countered through an incident regime [55.2480439325792]
  We propose a legally mandated post-deployment AI incident regime that aims to counter potential national security threats from AI systems. Our proposed AI incident regime is split into three phases. The first phase revolves around a novel operationalization of what counts as an 'AI incident' The second and third phases spell out that AI providers should notify a government agency about incidents, and that the government agency should be involved in amending AI providers' security and safety procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T17:51:50Z)
• In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
  We call for three interventions to advance system safety. First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers. Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs. Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• Position: A taxonomy for reporting and describing AI security incidents [57.98317583163334]
  We argue that specific are required to describe and report security incidents of AI systems. Existing frameworks for either non-AI security or generic AI safety incident reporting are insufficient to capture the specific properties of AI security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• Considerations Influencing Offense-Defense Dynamics From Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  AI can enhance defensive capabilities but also presents avenues for malicious exploitation and large-scale societal harm. This paper proposes a taxonomy to map and examine the key factors that influence whether AI systems predominantly pose threats or offer protective benefits to society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T10:05:53Z)
• Security Threats in Agentic AI System [0.0]
  The complexity of AI systems combined with their ability to process and analyze large volumes of data increases the chances of data leaks or breaches. As AI agents evolve with greater autonomy, their capacity to bypass or exploit security measures becomes a growing concern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:40:02Z)
• 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)
• AI Emergency Preparedness: Examining the federal government's ability to detect and respond to AI-related national security threats [0.2008854179910039]
  Emergency preparedness can improve the government's ability to monitor and predict AI progress. We focus on three plausible risk scenarios: (1) loss of control (threats from a powerful AI system that becomes capable of escaping human control), (2) cybersecurity threats from malicious actors, and (3) biological weapons proliferation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T17:54:01Z)
• AI Agents Under Threat: A Survey of Key Security Challenges and Future Pathways [10.16690494897609]
  An Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent is a software entity that autonomously performs tasks or makes decisions based on pre-defined objectives and data inputs. This survey delves into the emerging security threats faced by AI agents, categorizing them into four critical knowledge gaps. By systematically reviewing these threats, this paper highlights both the progress made and the existing limitations in safeguarding AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T01:22:31Z)
• A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
  Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• AI Potentiality and Awareness: A Position Paper from the Perspective of Human-AI Teaming in Cybersecurity [18.324118502535775]
  We argue that human-AI teaming is worthwhile in cybersecurity. We emphasize the importance of a balanced approach that incorporates AI's computational power with human expertise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T01:20:44Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• 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.