From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07300v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 01:45:15 GMT
• Title: From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AI
• Authors: Jonas Schuett, Markus Anderljung, Alexis Carlier, Leonie Koessler, Ben Garfinkel,
• Abstract summary: Regulators may require frontier AI developers to adopt safety measures. The requirements could be formulated as high-level principles or specific rules. These regulatory approaches, known as 'principle-based' and 'rule-based' regulation, have complementary strengths and weaknesses.
• Score: 2.1764247401772705
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 While specific rules provide more certainty and are easier to enforce, they can quickly become outdated and lead to box-ticking.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.

Related papers

• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• 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)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• SoFA: Shielded On-the-fly Alignment via Priority Rule Following [90.32819418613407]
  This paper introduces a novel alignment paradigm, priority rule following, which defines rules as the primary control mechanism in each dialog. We present PriorityDistill, a semi-automated approach for distilling priority following signals from simulations to ensure robust rule integration and adherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T09:52:27Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• No Trust without regulation! [0.0]
  The explosion in performance of Machine Learning (ML) and the potential of its applications are encouraging us to consider its use in industrial systems. It is still leaving too much to one side the issue of safety and its corollary, regulation and standards. The European Commission has laid the foundations for moving forward and building solid approaches to the integration of AI-based applications that are safe, trustworthy and respect European ethical values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T09:08:41Z)
• Frontier AI Regulation: Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safety [15.85618115026625]
  "Frontier AI" models could possess dangerous capabilities sufficient to pose severe risks to public safety. Industry self-regulation is an important first step. We propose an initial set of safety standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T17:03:25Z)
• Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safety [69.59465535312815]
  Regulatory Markets for AI is a proposal designed with adaptability in mind. It involves governments setting outcome-based targets for AI companies to achieve. We warn that it is alarmingly easy to stumble on incentives which would prevent Regulatory Markets from achieving this goal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-06T14:42:05Z)
• Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models [0.0]
  Large generative AI models (LGAIMs) are rapidly transforming the way we communicate, illustrate, and create. This paper will situate these new generative models in the current debate on trustworthy AI regulation. It suggests a novel terminology to capture the AI value chain in LGAIM settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-05T08:56:45Z)
• Negative Human Rights as a Basis for Long-term AI Safety and Regulation [1.5229257192293197]
  General principles guiding autonomous AI systems to recognize and avoid harmful behaviours may need to be supported by a binding system of regulation. They should also be specific enough for technical implementation. This article draws inspiration from law to explain how negative human rights could fulfil the role of such principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-31T11:57:13Z)

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.