Beyond Benchmarks: On The False Promise of AI Regulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15693v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 22:43:07 GMT
• Title: Beyond Benchmarks: On The False Promise of AI Regulation
• Authors: Gabriel Stanovsky, Renana Keydar, Gadi Perl, Eliya Habba,
• Abstract summary: We show that effective scientific regulation requires a causal theory linking observable test outcomes to future performance.<n>We show that deep learning models, which learn complex statistical patterns from training data without explicit causal mechanisms, preclude such guarantees.
• Score: 13.125853211532196
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in critical domains like healthcare, justice, and social services has sparked numerous regulatory initiatives aimed at ensuring their safe deployment. Current regulatory frameworks, exemplified by recent US and EU efforts, primarily focus on procedural guidelines while presuming that scientific benchmarking can effectively validate AI safety, similar to how crash tests verify vehicle safety or clinical trials validate drug efficacy. However, this approach fundamentally misunderstands the unique technical challenges posed by modern AI systems. Through systematic analysis of successful technology regulation case studies, we demonstrate that effective scientific regulation requires a causal theory linking observable test outcomes to future performance - for instance, how a vehicle's crash resistance at one speed predicts its safety at lower speeds. We show that deep learning models, which learn complex statistical patterns from training data without explicit causal mechanisms, preclude such guarantees. This limitation renders traditional regulatory approaches inadequate for ensuring AI safety. Moving forward, we call for regulators to reckon with this limitation, and propose a preliminary two-tiered regulatory framework that acknowledges these constraints: mandating human oversight for high-risk applications while developing appropriate risk communication strategies for lower-risk uses. Our findings highlight the urgent need to reconsider fundamental assumptions in AI regulation and suggest a concrete path forward for policymakers and researchers.

Related papers

• An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security [72.83728459135101]
  We develop an approach to address the risk of harms consequential enough to significantly harm humanity. We focus on technical approaches to misuse and misalignment. We briefly outline how these ingredients could be combined to produce safety cases for AGI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T15:59:31Z)
• 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)
• Mapping the Regulatory Learning Space for the EU AI Act [0.8987776881291145]
  The EU's AI Act represents the world first transnational AI regulation with concrete enforcement measures. It builds upon existing EU mechanisms for product health and safety regulation, but extends it to protect fundamental rights. These extensions introduce uncertainties in terms of how the technical state of the art will be applied to AI system certification and enforcement actions. We argue that these uncertainties, coupled with the fast changing nature of AI and the relative immaturity of the state of the art in fundamental rights risk management require the implementation of the AI Act to place a strong emphasis on comprehensive and rapid regulatory learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T12:46:30Z)
• Auction-Based Regulation for Artificial Intelligence [28.86995747151915]
  We propose an auction-based regulatory mechanism to regulate AI safety. We provably guarantee that each participating agent's best strategy is to submit a model safer than a prescribed minimum-safety threshold. Empirical results show that our regulatory auction boosts safety and participation rates by 20% and 15% respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T17:57:02Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction.<n>Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results.<n>However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges.<n>This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T17:54:57Z)
• Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy: Risks of LLM Agents for Science [65.77763092833348]
  Intelligent agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that demand careful consideration for safety. This paper conducts a thorough examination of vulnerabilities in LLM-based agents within scientific domains, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse and emphasizing the need for safety measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)
• Testing learning-enabled cyber-physical systems with Large-Language Models: A Formal Approach [32.15663640443728]
  The integration of machine learning (ML) into cyber-physical systems (CPS) offers significant benefits. Existing verification and validation techniques are often inadequate for these new paradigms. We propose a roadmap to transition from foundational probabilistic testing to a more rigorous approach capable of delivering formal assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T14:56:14Z)
• 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)
• Liability regimes in the age of AI: a use-case driven analysis of the burden of proof [1.7510020208193926]
  New emerging technologies powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) have the potential to disruptively transform our societies for the better. But there is growing concerns about certain intrinsic characteristics of these methodologies that carry potential risks to both safety and fundamental rights. This paper presents three case studies, as well as the methodology to reach them, that illustrate these difficulties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-03T13:55:36Z)

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.