Enabling Frontier Lab Collaboration to Mitigate AI Safety Risks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08631v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 01:01:04 GMT
• Title: Enabling Frontier Lab Collaboration to Mitigate AI Safety Risks
• Abstract summary: This paper outlines the risks of unconstrained AI development and the benefits of lab-lab coordination.<n>It then analyses potential antitrust concerns, including output restrictions, market allocation, and information sharing.<n>It surveys a range of legislative and regulatory reforms that could provide legal clarity and safe harbours.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Frontier AI labs face intense commercial competitive pressure to develop increasingly powerful systems, raising the risk of a race to the bottom on safety. Voluntary coordination among labs - including by way of joint safety testing, information sharing, and resource pooling - could reduce catastrophic and existential risks. But the risk of antitrust scrutiny may deter such collaboration, even when it is demonstrably beneficial. This paper explores how U.S. antitrust policy can evolve to accommodate AI safety cooperation without abandoning core competition principles. After outlining the risks of unconstrained AI development and the benefits of lab-lab coordination, the paper analyses potential antitrust concerns, including output restrictions, market allocation, and information sharing. It then surveys a range of legislative and regulatory reforms that could provide legal clarity and safe harbours that will encourage responsible collaboration.

Related papers

• Qualifying and Quantifying Risk Under the EU AI Act [0.8782077377058891]
  The EU AI Act uses a risk-based approach to regulate AI systems, calibrating the intensity of regulation according to the risks they pose.<n>While the term 'risk' implies quantification, the AI Act refers to risks to fundamental rights, thereby engaging a qualitative perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T08:08:12Z)
• 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)
• Toward a Unified Security Framework for AI Agents: Trust, Risk, and Liability [2.8407281360114527]
  The Trust, Risk and Liability (TRL) framework proposed in this paper ties together the interdependent relationships of trust, risk, and liability to provide a systematic method of building and enhancing trust.<n>The implications of the TRL framework lie in its potential societal impacts, economic impacts, ethical impacts, and more.<n>It is expected to bring remarkable values to addressing potential challenges and promoting trustworthy, risk-free, and responsible usage of AI in 6G networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T01:55:03Z)
• 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)
• Identifying, Evaluating, and Mitigating Risks of AI Thought Partnerships [35.135633927249735]
  We identify risks of AI thought partners through a novel framework.<n>We propose concrete metrics for risk evaluation.<n>We suggest specific mitigation strategies for developers and policymakers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T16:58:48Z)
• In Which Areas of Technical AI Safety Could Geopolitical Rivals Cooperate? [66.89036079974998]
  We consider technical factors that impact the risks of international cooperation on AI safety research.<n>We focus on the degree to which such cooperation can advance dangerous capabilities, result in the sharing of sensitive information, or provide opportunities for harm.<n>We argue that existing frameworks for managing associated risks can be supplemented with consideration of key risks specific to cooperation on technical AI safety research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T13:03:56Z)
• AI Risk Management Should Incorporate Both Safety and Security [185.68738503122114]
  We argue that stakeholders in AI risk management should be aware of the nuances, synergies, and interplay between safety and security. We introduce a unified reference framework to clarify the differences and interplay between AI safety and AI security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T21:00:47Z)
• 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)
• Risks of AI Scientists: Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy [65.77763092833348]
  This perspective examines vulnerabilities in AI scientists, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse.<n>We take into account user intent, the specific scientific domain, and their potential impact on the external environment.<n>We propose a triadic framework involving human regulation, agent alignment, and an understanding of environmental feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)

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.