This page is still being polished. If you have thoughts, please share them via the feedback form.
Data on this page is preliminary and may change. Please do not share or cite these figures publicly.
Board and executive-level accountability, approval authority, and strategic direction.
Also in Oversight & Accountability
Disclosing to a regulator how high-stakes decisions regarding model development and deployment are made.
Multiple experts agreed that transparency in governance structures is generally beneficial and important for accountability, but opinions varied on its effectiveness in directly mitigating specific risks. Several experts noted that while helpful, transparency alone is not sufficient and must be coupled with other measures. A common view was that transparency could be particularly useful for understanding and mitigating infrastructure risks and risks related to democratic processes. However, multiple experts expressed uncertainty about how regulators would effectively use or act on the disclosed information. Some experts highlighted potential challenges, including the difficulty of ensuring full and meaningful disclosures, the potential burden on smaller companies, and the need to balance transparency with confidentiality and trade secrets. Several experts mentioned that transparency could help standardise best practices across the industry and prepare governments for potential risks. However, one expert cautioned that relying solely on company disclosures might create a false sense of security.
Reasoning
Discloses decision-making authority and approval processes for high-stakes governance decisions to regulators.
Pre-deployment risk assessments
Comprehensive risk assessments before deployment that would assess reasonably foreseeable misuse and include dangerous capability evaluations that incorporate post-training enhancements and collaborations with domain experts. Risk assessments would inform deployment decisions.
2.2.1 Risk AssessmentThird party pre-deployment model audits
External pre-deployment assessment to provide a judgment on the safety of a model. Auditors, which could be governments or independent third parties, would receive access to a fine-tuning API for testing, or further appropriate technical means.
2.2.3 Auditing & ComplianceExternal assessment of testing procedure
Bringing in external AI evaluation firms before deployment to assess and red-team the company's execution of dangerous capabilities evaluations.
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationVetted researcher access
Giving good faith, public interest evaluation researchers access to black-box research APIs that provide technical and legal safe harbours to limit barriers imposed by usage policy enforcement, logging, and stringent terms of service.
2.3.1 Deployment ManagementAdvanced model access for vetted external researchers
Examples of advanced access rights could include any of the following: increased control over sampling, access to fine-tuning functionality, the ability to inspect and modify model internals, access to training data, or additional features like stable model versions.
2.2.2 Testing & EvaluationData curation
Careful data curation prior to all development stages (including fine-tuning) to filter out high-risk content and ensure the training data is sufficiently high-quality.
1.1.1 Training DataEffective Mitigations for Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AI
Uuk, Risto; Brouwer, Annemieke; Schreier, Tim; Dreksler, Noemi; Pulignano, Valeria; Bommasani, Rishi (2024)
The systemic risks posed by general-purpose AI models are a growing concern, yet the effectiveness of mitigations remains underexplored. Previous research has proposed frameworks for risk mitigation, but has left gaps in our understanding of the perceived effectiveness of measures for mitigating systemic risks. Our study addresses this gap by evaluating how experts perceive different mitigations that aim to reduce the systemic risks of general-purpose AI models. We surveyed 76 experts whose expertise spans AI safety; critical infrastructure; democratic processes; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks (CBRN); and discrimination and bias. Among 27 mitigations identified through a literature review, we find that a broad range of risk mitigation measures are perceived as effective in reducing various systemic risks and technically feasible by domain experts. In particular, three mitigation measures stand out: safety incident reports and security information sharing, third-party pre-deployment model audits, and pre-deployment risk assessments. These measures show both the highest expert agreement ratings (>60\%) across all four risk areas and are most frequently selected in experts' preferred combinations of measures (>40\%). The surveyed experts highlighted that external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency are key principles for effective mitigation of systemic risks. We provide policy recommendations for implementing the most promising measures, incorporating the qualitative contributions from experts. These insights should inform regulatory frameworks and industry practices for mitigating the systemic risks associated with general-purpose AI.
Other (outside lifecycle)
Outside the standard AI system lifecycle
Other
Actor type not captured by the standard categories
Govern
Policies, processes, and accountability structures for AI risk management
