AI Behind Closed Doors: a Primer on The Governance of Internal Deployment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12170v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:21:13 GMT
• Title: AI Behind Closed Doors: a Primer on The Governance of Internal Deployment
• Authors: Charlotte Stix, Matteo Pistillo, Girish Sastry, Marius Hobbhahn, Alejandro Ortega, Mikita Balesni, Annika Hallensleben, Nix Goldowsky-Dill, Lee Sharkey,
• Abstract summary: Internal deployment is a key source of benefits and risks from frontier AI systems.<n>This report aims to address this absence by priming a conversation around the governance of internal deployment.<n>It discusses the risks correlated to the loss of control via the internal application of a misaligned AI system to the AI research and development pipeline.
• Score: 33.99253912746621
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The most advanced future AI systems will first be deployed inside the frontier AI companies developing them. According to these companies and independent experts, AI systems may reach or even surpass human intelligence and capabilities by 2030. Internal deployment is, therefore, a key source of benefits and risks from frontier AI systems. Despite this, the governance of the internal deployment of highly advanced frontier AI systems appears absent. This report aims to address this absence by priming a conversation around the governance of internal deployment. It presents a conceptualization of internal deployment, learnings from other sectors, reviews of existing legal frameworks and their applicability, and illustrative examples of the type of scenarios we are most concerned about. Specifically, it discusses the risks correlated to the loss of control via the internal application of a misaligned AI system to the AI research and development pipeline, and unconstrained and undetected power concentration behind closed doors. The report culminates with a small number of targeted recommendations that provide a first blueprint for the governance of internal deployment.

Related papers

• Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
  We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
• Internal Deployment Gaps in AI Regulation [4.575084788651121]
  High-stakes applications can occur internally when companies deploy highly capable systems within their own organizations.<n>This paper examines how frontier AI regulations in the United States and European Union in 2025 handle internal deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T21:18:11Z)
• International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management [115.92752850425272]
  Second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year.<n> examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T03:12:56Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Bottom-Up Perspectives on AI Governance: Insights from User Reviews of AI Products [0.0]
  This study adopts a bottom-up approach to explore how governance-relevant themes are expressed in user discourse.<n> Drawing on over 100,000 user reviews of AI products from G2.com, we apply BERTopic to extract latent themes and identify those most semantically related to AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T01:33:21Z)
• A Framework for the Private Governance of Frontier Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  The paper presents a proposal for the governance of frontier AI systems through a hybrid public-private system. Private bodies, authorized and overseen by government, provide certifications to developers of frontier AI systems on an opt-in basis. In exchange for opting in, frontier AI firms receive protections from tort liability for customer misuse of their models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T02:56:26Z)
• 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.<n>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'<n>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.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• Compliance of AI Systems [0.0]
  This paper systematically examines the compliance of AI systems with relevant legislation, focusing on the EU's AI Act. The analysis highlighted many challenges associated with edge devices, which are increasingly being used to deploy AI applications closer and closer to the data sources. The importance of data set compliance is highlighted as a cornerstone for ensuring the trustworthiness, transparency, and explainability of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T16:53:36Z)
• Enabling External Scrutiny of AI Systems with Privacy-Enhancing Technologies [0.0]
  This article describes how technical infrastructure developed by the nonprofit OpenMined enables external scrutiny of AI systems without compromising sensitive information.<n>In practice, external researchers have struggled to gain access to AI systems because of AI companies' legitimate concerns about security, privacy, and intellectual property.<n>PETs have reached a new level of maturity: end-to-end technical infrastructure developed by OpenMined combines several PETs into various setups that enable privacy-preserving audits of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T15:31:11Z)
• Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents [0.0]
  ETHOS is a decentralized governance (DeGov) model leveraging Web3 technologies, including blockchain, smart contracts, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)<n>It establishes a global registry for AI agents, enabling dynamic risk classification, proportional oversight, and automated compliance monitoring.<n>By integrating philosophical principles of rationality, ethical grounding, and goal alignment, ETHOS aims to create a robust research agenda for promoting trust, transparency, and participatory governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-22T18:01:49Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• Towards Responsible Governing AI Proliferation [0.0]
  The paper introduces the Proliferation' paradigm, which anticipates the rise of smaller, decentralized, open-sourced AI models.<n>It posits that these developments are both probable and likely to introduce both benefits and novel risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T13:10:35Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Frontier AI developers need an internal audit function [0.2913760942403036]
  Article argues that frontier artificial intelligence (AI) developers need an internal audit function. In light of rapid progress in AI research and development, frontier AI developers need to strengthen their risk governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T15:48:05Z)
• 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.