Insuring Uninsurable Risks from AI: The State as Insurer of Last Resort

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.06672v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 17:41:24 GMT
• Title: Insuring Uninsurable Risks from AI: The State as Insurer of Last Resort
• Authors: Cristian Trout,
• Abstract summary: Program uses risk-priced indemnity fees to induce socially optimal levels of care. Risk-estimates are determined by surveying experts, including indemnified developers. It's recommended that collected fees be used to help fund the safety research developers need.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many experts believe that AI systems will sooner or later pose uninsurable risks, including existential risks. This creates an extreme judgment-proof problem: few if any parties can be held accountable ex post in the event of such a catastrophe. This paper proposes a novel solution: a government-provided, mandatory indemnification program for AI developers. The program uses risk-priced indemnity fees to induce socially optimal levels of care. Risk-estimates are determined by surveying experts, including indemnified developers. The Bayesian Truth Serum mechanism is employed to incent honest and effortful responses. Compared to alternatives, this approach arguably better leverages all private information, and provides a clearer signal to indemnified developers regarding what risks they must mitigate to lower their fees. It's recommended that collected fees be used to help fund the safety research developers need, employing a fund matching mechanism (Quadratic Financing) to induce an optimal supply of this public good. Under Quadratic Financing, safety research projects would compete for private contributions from developers, signaling how much each is to be supplemented with public funds.

Related papers

• Assessing confidence in frontier AI safety cases [37.839615078345886]
  A safety case presents a structured argument in support of a top-level claim about a safety property of the system. This raises the question of what level of confidence should be associated with a top-level claim. We propose a method by which AI developers can prioritise, and thereby make their investigation of argument defeaters more efficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T06:35:11Z)
• Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed [58.88624302082713]
  This paper argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed. In support of this position, we build from prior scientific literature and current product marketing to delineate different AI agent levels. Our analysis reveals that risks to people increase with the autonomy of a system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T19:00:06Z)
• SAIF: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating the Risks of Generative AI in the Public Sector [4.710921988115686]
  We propose a Systematic dAta generatIon Framework for evaluating the risks of generative AI (SAIF) SAIF involves four key stages: breaking down risks, designing scenarios, applying jailbreak methods, and exploring prompt types. We believe that this study can play a crucial role in fostering the safe and responsible integration of generative AI into the public sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-15T14:12:38Z)
• Risks and NLP Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document QA [52.557503571760215]
  We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. We conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:23:43Z)
• 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)
• SafeAR: Safe Algorithmic Recourse by Risk-Aware Policies [2.291948092032746]
  We present a method to compute recourse policies that consider variability in cost. We show how existing recourse desiderata can fail to capture the risk of higher costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T18:12:11Z)
• Eliciting Risk Aversion with Inverse Reinforcement Learning via Interactive Questioning [0.0]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for identifying an agent's risk aversion using interactive questioning. We prove that the agent's risk aversion can be identified as the number of questions tends to infinity, and the questions are randomly designed. Our framework has important applications in robo-advising and provides a new approach for identifying an agent's risk preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-16T15:17:57Z)
• Probably Anytime-Safe Stochastic Combinatorial Semi-Bandits [81.60136088841948]
  We propose an algorithm that minimizes the regret over the horizon of time $T$. The proposed algorithm is applicable to domains such as recommendation systems and transportation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T03:49:00Z)
• Incentive-Aware Recommender Systems in Two-Sided Markets [49.692453629365204]
  We propose a novel recommender system that aligns with agents' incentives while achieving myopically optimal performance. Our framework models this incentive-aware system as a multi-agent bandit problem in two-sided markets. Both algorithms satisfy an ex-post fairness criterion, which protects agents from over-exploitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T22:20:12Z)
• A Survey of Risk-Aware Multi-Armed Bandits [84.67376599822569]
  We review various risk measures of interest, and comment on their properties. We consider algorithms for the regret minimization setting, where the exploration-exploitation trade-off manifests. We conclude by commenting on persisting challenges and fertile areas for future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-12T02:20:34Z)

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.