-
Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence
Authors:
Girish Sastry,
Lennart Heim,
Haydn Belfield,
Markus Anderljung,
Miles Brundage,
Julian Hazell,
Cullen O'Keefe,
Gillian K. Hadfield,
Richard Ngo,
Konstantin Pilz,
George Gor,
Emma Bluemke,
Sarah Shoker,
Janet Egan,
Robert F. Trager,
Shahar Avin,
Adrian Weller,
Yoshua Bengio,
Diane Coyle
Abstract:
Computing power, or "compute," is crucial for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. As a result, governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. For example, governments are investing in domestic compute capacity, controlling the flow of compute to competing countries, and subsidizing compute access to certain sectors. Howe…
▽ More
Computing power, or "compute," is crucial for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. As a result, governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. For example, governments are investing in domestic compute capacity, controlling the flow of compute to competing countries, and subsidizing compute access to certain sectors. However, these efforts only scratch the surface of how compute can be used to govern AI development and deployment. Relative to other key inputs to AI (data and algorithms), AI-relevant compute is a particularly effective point of intervention: it is detectable, excludable, and quantifiable, and is produced via an extremely concentrated supply chain. These characteristics, alongside the singular importance of compute for cutting-edge AI models, suggest that governing compute can contribute to achieving common policy objectives, such as ensuring the safety and beneficial use of AI. More precisely, policymakers could use compute to facilitate regulatory visibility of AI, allocate resources to promote beneficial outcomes, and enforce restrictions against irresponsible or malicious AI development and usage. However, while compute-based policies and technologies have the potential to assist in these areas, there is significant variation in their readiness for implementation. Some ideas are currently being piloted, while others are hindered by the need for fundamental research. Furthermore, naive or poorly scoped approaches to compute governance carry significant risks in areas like privacy, economic impacts, and centralization of power. We end by suggesting guardrails to minimize these risks from compute governance.
△ Less
Submitted 13 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Visibility into AI Agents
Authors:
Alan Chan,
Carson Ezell,
Max Kaufmann,
Kevin Wei,
Lewis Hammond,
Herbie Bradley,
Emma Bluemke,
Nitarshan Rajkumar,
David Krueger,
Noam Kolt,
Lennart Heim,
Markus Anderljung
Abstract:
Increased delegation of commercial, scientific, governmental, and personal activities to AI agents -- systems capable of pursuing complex goals with limited supervision -- may exacerbate existing societal risks and introduce new risks. Understanding and mitigating these risks involves critically evaluating existing governance structures, revising and adapting these structures where needed, and ens…
▽ More
Increased delegation of commercial, scientific, governmental, and personal activities to AI agents -- systems capable of pursuing complex goals with limited supervision -- may exacerbate existing societal risks and introduce new risks. Understanding and mitigating these risks involves critically evaluating existing governance structures, revising and adapting these structures where needed, and ensuring accountability of key stakeholders. Information about where, why, how, and by whom certain AI agents are used, which we refer to as visibility, is critical to these objectives. In this paper, we assess three categories of measures to increase visibility into AI agents: agent identifiers, real-time monitoring, and activity logging. For each, we outline potential implementations that vary in intrusiveness and informativeness. We analyze how the measures apply across a spectrum of centralized through decentralized deployment contexts, accounting for various actors in the supply chain including hardware and software service providers. Finally, we discuss the implications of our measures for privacy and concentration of power. Further work into understanding the measures and mitigating their negative impacts can help to build a foundation for the governance of AI agents.
△ Less
Submitted 17 May, 2024; v1 submitted 23 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Towards Publicly Accountable Frontier LLMs: Building an External Scrutiny Ecosystem under the ASPIRE Framework
Authors:
Markus Anderljung,
Everett Thornton Smith,
Joe O'Brien,
Lisa Soder,
Benjamin Bucknall,
Emma Bluemke,
Jonas Schuett,
Robert Trager,
Lacey Strahm,
Rumman Chowdhury
Abstract:
With the increasing integration of frontier large language models (LLMs) into society and the economy, decisions related to their training, deployment, and use have far-reaching implications. These decisions should not be left solely in the hands of frontier LLM developers. LLM users, civil society and policymakers need trustworthy sources of information to steer such decisions for the better. Inv…
▽ More
With the increasing integration of frontier large language models (LLMs) into society and the economy, decisions related to their training, deployment, and use have far-reaching implications. These decisions should not be left solely in the hands of frontier LLM developers. LLM users, civil society and policymakers need trustworthy sources of information to steer such decisions for the better. Involving outside actors in the evaluation of these systems - what we term 'external scrutiny' - via red-teaming, auditing, and external researcher access, offers a solution. Though there are encouraging signs of increasing external scrutiny of frontier LLMs, its success is not assured. In this paper, we survey six requirements for effective external scrutiny of frontier AI systems and organize them under the ASPIRE framework: Access, Searching attitude, Proportionality to the risks, Independence, Resources, and Expertise. We then illustrate how external scrutiny might function throughout the AI lifecycle and offer recommendations to policymakers.
△ Less
Submitted 15 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Open-Sourcing Highly Capable Foundation Models: An evaluation of risks, benefits, and alternative methods for pursuing open-source objectives
Authors:
Elizabeth Seger,
Noemi Dreksler,
Richard Moulange,
Emily Dardaman,
Jonas Schuett,
K. Wei,
Christoph Winter,
Mackenzie Arnold,
Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh,
Anton Korinek,
Markus Anderljung,
Ben Bucknall,
Alan Chan,
Eoghan Stafford,
Leonie Koessler,
Aviv Ovadya,
Ben Garfinkel,
Emma Bluemke,
Michael Aird,
Patrick Levermore,
Julian Hazell,
Abhishek Gupta
Abstract:
Recent decisions by leading AI labs to either open-source their models or to restrict access to their models has sparked debate about whether, and how, increasingly capable AI models should be shared. Open-sourcing in AI typically refers to making model architecture and weights freely and publicly accessible for anyone to modify, study, build on, and use. This offers advantages such as enabling ex…
▽ More
Recent decisions by leading AI labs to either open-source their models or to restrict access to their models has sparked debate about whether, and how, increasingly capable AI models should be shared. Open-sourcing in AI typically refers to making model architecture and weights freely and publicly accessible for anyone to modify, study, build on, and use. This offers advantages such as enabling external oversight, accelerating progress, and decentralizing control over AI development and use. However, it also presents a growing potential for misuse and unintended consequences. This paper offers an examination of the risks and benefits of open-sourcing highly capable foundation models. While open-sourcing has historically provided substantial net benefits for most software and AI development processes, we argue that for some highly capable foundation models likely to be developed in the near future, open-sourcing may pose sufficiently extreme risks to outweigh the benefits. In such a case, highly capable foundation models should not be open-sourced, at least not initially. Alternative strategies, including non-open-source model sharing options, are explored. The paper concludes with recommendations for developers, standard-setting bodies, and governments for establishing safe and responsible model sharing practices and preserving open-source benefits where safe.
△ Less
Submitted 29 September, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Towards best practices in AGI safety and governance: A survey of expert opinion
Authors:
Jonas Schuett,
Noemi Dreksler,
Markus Anderljung,
David McCaffary,
Lennart Heim,
Emma Bluemke,
Ben Garfinkel
Abstract:
A number of leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic, have the stated goal of building artificial general intelligence (AGI) - AI systems that achieve or exceed human performance across a wide range of cognitive tasks. In pursuing this goal, they may develop and deploy AI systems that pose particularly significant risks. While they have already taken some measures to…
▽ More
A number of leading AI companies, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic, have the stated goal of building artificial general intelligence (AGI) - AI systems that achieve or exceed human performance across a wide range of cognitive tasks. In pursuing this goal, they may develop and deploy AI systems that pose particularly significant risks. While they have already taken some measures to mitigate these risks, best practices have not yet emerged. To support the identification of best practices, we sent a survey to 92 leading experts from AGI labs, academia, and civil society and received 51 responses. Participants were asked how much they agreed with 50 statements about what AGI labs should do. Our main finding is that participants, on average, agreed with all of them. Many statements received extremely high levels of agreement. For example, 98% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that AGI labs should conduct pre-deployment risk assessments, dangerous capabilities evaluations, third-party model audits, safety restrictions on model usage, and red teaming. Ultimately, our list of statements may serve as a helpful foundation for efforts to develop best practices, standards, and regulations for AGI labs.
△ Less
Submitted 11 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Exploring the Relevance of Data Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for AI Governance Use Cases
Authors:
Emma Bluemke,
Tantum Collins,
Ben Garfinkel,
Andrew Trask
Abstract:
The development of privacy-enhancing technologies has made immense progress in reducing trade-offs between privacy and performance in data exchange and analysis. Similar tools for structured transparency could be useful for AI governance by offering capabilities such as external scrutiny, auditing, and source verification. It is useful to view these different AI governance objectives as a system o…
▽ More
The development of privacy-enhancing technologies has made immense progress in reducing trade-offs between privacy and performance in data exchange and analysis. Similar tools for structured transparency could be useful for AI governance by offering capabilities such as external scrutiny, auditing, and source verification. It is useful to view these different AI governance objectives as a system of information flows in order to avoid partial solutions and significant gaps in governance, as there may be significant overlap in the software stacks needed for the AI governance use cases mentioned in this text. When viewing the system as a whole, the importance of interoperability between these different AI governance solutions becomes clear. Therefore, it is imminently important to look at these problems in AI governance as a system, before these standards, auditing procedures, software, and norms settle into place.
△ Less
Submitted 20 March, 2023; v1 submitted 15 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Challenges for machine learning in clinical translation of big data imaging studies
Authors:
Nicola K Dinsdale,
Emma Bluemke,
Vaanathi Sundaresan,
Mark Jenkinson,
Stephen Smith,
Ana IL Namburete
Abstract:
The combination of deep learning image analysis methods and large-scale imaging datasets offers many opportunities to imaging neuroscience and epidemiology. However, despite the success of deep learning when applied to many neuroimaging tasks, there remain barriers to the clinical translation of large-scale datasets and processing tools. Here, we explore the main challenges and the approaches that…
▽ More
The combination of deep learning image analysis methods and large-scale imaging datasets offers many opportunities to imaging neuroscience and epidemiology. However, despite the success of deep learning when applied to many neuroimaging tasks, there remain barriers to the clinical translation of large-scale datasets and processing tools. Here, we explore the main challenges and the approaches that have been explored to overcome them. We focus on issues relating to data availability, interpretability, evaluation and logistical challenges, and discuss the challenges we believe are still to be overcome to enable the full success of big data deep learning approaches to be experienced outside of the research field.
△ Less
Submitted 7 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Beyond Privacy Trade-offs with Structured Transparency
Authors:
Andrew Trask,
Emma Bluemke,
Teddy Collins,
Ben Garfinkel Eric Drexler,
Claudia Ghezzou Cuervas-Mons,
Iason Gabriel,
Allan Dafoe,
William Isaac
Abstract:
Successful collaboration involves sharing information. However, parties may disagree on how the information they need to share should be used. We argue that many of these concerns reduce to 'the copy problem': once a bit of information is copied and shared, the sender can no longer control how the recipient uses it. From the perspective of each collaborator, this presents a dilemma that can inhibi…
▽ More
Successful collaboration involves sharing information. However, parties may disagree on how the information they need to share should be used. We argue that many of these concerns reduce to 'the copy problem': once a bit of information is copied and shared, the sender can no longer control how the recipient uses it. From the perspective of each collaborator, this presents a dilemma that can inhibit collaboration. The copy problem is often amplified by three related problems which we term the bundling, edit, and recursive enforcement problems. We find that while the copy problem is not solvable, aspects of these amplifying problems have been addressed in a variety of disconnected fields. We observe that combining these efforts could improve the governability of information flows and thereby incentivise collaboration. We propose a five-part framework which groups these efforts into specific capabilities and offers a foundation for their integration into an overarching vision we call "structured transparency". We conclude by surveying an array of use-cases that illustrate the structured transparency principles and their related capabilities.
△ Less
Submitted 12 March, 2024; v1 submitted 15 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
-
Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims
Authors:
Miles Brundage,
Shahar Avin,
Jasmine Wang,
Haydn Belfield,
Gretchen Krueger,
Gillian Hadfield,
Heidy Khlaaf,
Jingying Yang,
Helen Toner,
Ruth Fong,
Tegan Maharaj,
Pang Wei Koh,
Sara Hooker,
Jade Leung,
Andrew Trask,
Emma Bluemke,
Jonathan Lebensold,
Cullen O'Keefe,
Mark Koren,
Théo Ryffel,
JB Rubinovitz,
Tamay Besiroglu,
Federica Carugati,
Jack Clark,
Peter Eckersley
, et al. (34 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they…
▽ More
With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they are building AI responsibly, they will need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. Those outside of a given organization also need effective means of scrutinizing such claims. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems and their associated development processes, with a focus on providing evidence about the safety, security, fairness, and privacy protection of 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.
△ Less
Submitted 20 April, 2020; v1 submitted 15 April, 2020;
originally announced April 2020.
