An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00821v1
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:54:57 GMT
- Title: An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence
- Authors: Daniel Carpenter, Carson Ezell,
- Abstract summary: We explore the applicability of approval regulation -- that is, regulation of a product that combines experimental minima with government licensure conditioned partially or fully upon that experimentation -- to the regulation of frontier AI.
There are a number of reasons to believe that approval regulation, simplistically applied, would be inapposite for frontier AI risks.
We conclude by highlighting the role of policy learning and experimentation in regulatory development.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Observers and practitioners of artificial intelligence (AI) have proposed an FDA-style licensing regime for the most advanced AI models, or 'frontier' models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of approval regulation -- that is, regulation of a product that combines experimental minima with government licensure conditioned partially or fully upon that experimentation -- to the regulation of frontier AI. There are a number of reasons to believe that approval regulation, simplistically applied, would be inapposite for frontier AI risks. Domains of weak fit include the difficulty of defining the regulated product, the presence of Knightian uncertainty or deep ambiguity about harms from AI, the potentially transmissible nature of risks, and distributed activities among actors involved in the AI lifecycle. We conclude by highlighting the role of policy learning and experimentation in regulatory development, describing how learning from other forms of AI regulation and improvements in evaluation and testing methods can help to overcome some of the challenges we identify.
Related papers
- 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) - How Could Generative AI Support Compliance with the EU AI Act? A Review for Safe Automated Driving Perception [4.075971633195745]
Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have become central for the perception functions of autonomous vehicles.
The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act aims to address these challenges by establishing stringent norms and standards for AI systems.
This review paper summarizes the requirements arising from the EU AI Act regarding DNN-based perception systems and systematically categorizes existing generative AI applications in AD.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-30T12:01:06Z) - False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) [3.298597939573779]
We argue that AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety.
Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous "box-ticking" exercise.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-06T20:02:07Z) - Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power.
We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z) - 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) - Statutory Professions in AI governance and their consequences for
explainable AI [2.363388546004777]
Intentional and accidental harms arising from the use of AI have impacted the health, safety and rights of individuals.
We propose that a statutory profession framework be introduced as a necessary part of the AI regulatory framework.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-15T08:51:28Z) - Quantitative study about the estimated impact of the AI Act [0.0]
We suggest a systematic approach that we applied on the initial draft of the AI Act that has been released in April 2021.
We went through several iterations of compiling the list of AI products and projects in and from Germany, which the Lernende Systeme platform lists.
It turns out that only about 30% of the AI systems considered would be regulated by the AI Act, the rest would be classified as low-risk.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-29T06:23:16Z) - Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them.
We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives.
We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z) - An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive
qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence.
The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
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.