Data-Centric AI Governance: Addressing the Limitations of Model-Focused Policies
2
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Current regulations on powerful AI capabilities are narrow and focus on foundation or frontier models
- These terms are vague and inconsistently defined, leading to an unstable foundation for governance efforts
- Policy debates often fail to consider the data used with these models, despite the clear link between data and model performance
- Even smaller models can achieve equivalent outcomes when exposed to specific datasets
Plain English Explanation
The paper argues that the current regulations on powerful AI systems are too narrowly focused on a specific type of AI model, known as foundation or frontier models. These terms are not well-defined, which makes it difficult to create effective governance policies.
Importantly, the paper emphasizes that the data used to train these AI models is just as important as the models themselves. Even relatively small AI models can perform as well as larger models if they are trained on the right kind of data.
This means that policymakers need to consider the data aspect, not just the models, when trying to regulate powerful AI capabilities. Focusing only on the models and ignoring the data could lead to an unstable regulatory environment.
The paper suggests that a more careful, quantitative evaluation of AI capabilities, considering both the models and the data, could simplify the regulatory process and lead to more effective governance of these technologies.
Technical Explanation
The paper argues that current regulations on powerful AI capabilities are narrowly focused on a specific type of model, known as foundation or frontier models. However, these terms are vague and inconsistently defined, which leads to an unstable foundation for governance efforts.
The paper emphasizes that policy debates often fail to consider the data used to train these AI models, despite the clear link between data and model performance. Even [relatively] small models that fall outside the typical definitions of foundation and frontier models can achieve equivalent outcomes when exposed to sufficiently specific datasets.
The authors illustrate the importance of considering dataset size and content as essential factors in assessing the risks posed by AI models, both today and in the future. They argue that over-regulating reactively could be problematic and suggest a path towards careful, quantitative evaluation of capabilities that can lead to a simplified regulatory environment.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important points about the need to consider data in addition to models when evaluating the risks of powerful AI systems. This is a valid concern, as the data used to train AI models can have a significant impact on their performance and capabilities.
However, the paper does not provide a clear and detailed framework for how to conduct this quantitative evaluation of AI capabilities. The authors mention this as a potential path forward, but more specifics would be helpful to understand how this could be implemented in practice.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or limitations of this approach, such as the difficulty of obtaining comprehensive data on the training datasets used for various AI models. Addressing these types of concerns would strengthen the paper's arguments and make the proposed solution more robust.
Overall, the paper raises important issues that deserve further research and discussion, but more work is needed to develop a comprehensive and practical approach to AI governance that considers both models and data.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the need to consider data as well as models when regulating powerful AI capabilities. The current focus on foundation and frontier models is too narrow and fails to account for the significant impact that data can have on an AI system's performance.
By emphasizing the importance of dataset size and content, the authors argue that even relatively small AI models can achieve equivalent outcomes to larger models if they are trained on the right data. This suggests that a more holistic, quantitative approach to evaluating AI capabilities is necessary to develop effective governance policies.
While the paper does not provide a detailed framework for this approach, it does offer a valuable perspective on the limitations of the current regulatory landscape and the need to address the data aspect of AI systems. Continued research and discussion in this area could lead to a more stable and effective regulatory environment for powerful AI technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
2
Data-Centric AI Governance: Addressing the Limitations of Model-Focused Policies
Ritwik Gupta, Leah Walker, Rodolfo Corona, Stephanie Fu, Suzanne Petryk, Janet Napolitano, Trevor Darrell, Andrew W. Reddie
Current regulations on powerful AI capabilities are narrowly focused on foundation or frontier models. However, these terms are vague and inconsistently defined, leading to an unstable foundation for governance efforts. Critically, policy debates often fail to consider the data used with these models, despite the clear link between data and model performance. Even (relatively) small models that fall outside the typical definitions of foundation and frontier models can achieve equivalent outcomes when exposed to sufficiently specific datasets. In this work, we illustrate the importance of considering dataset size and content as essential factors in assessing the risks posed by models both today and in the future. More broadly, we emphasize the risk posed by over-regulating reactively and provide a path towards careful, quantitative evaluation of capabilities that can lead to a simplified regulatory environment.
Read more9/27/2024
🤖
0
From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AI
Jonas Schuett, Markus Anderljung, Alexis Carlier, Leonie Koessler, Ben Garfinkel
Several jurisdictions are starting to regulate frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems, i.e. general-purpose AI systems that match or exceed the capabilities present in the most advanced systems. To reduce risks from these systems, regulators may require frontier AI developers to adopt safety measures. The requirements could be formulated as high-level principles (e.g. 'AI systems should be safe and secure') or specific rules (e.g. 'AI systems must be evaluated for dangerous model capabilities following the protocol set forth in...'). These regulatory approaches, known as 'principle-based' and 'rule-based' regulation, have complementary strengths and weaknesses. While specific rules provide more certainty and are easier to enforce, they can quickly become outdated and lead to box-ticking. Conversely, while high-level principles provide less certainty and are more costly to enforce, they are more adaptable and more appropriate in situations where the regulator is unsure exactly what behavior would best advance a given regulatory objective. However, rule-based and principle-based regulation are not binary options. Policymakers must choose a point on the spectrum between them, recognizing that the right level of specificity may vary between requirements and change over time. We recommend that policymakers should initially (1) mandate adherence to high-level principles for safe frontier AI development and deployment, (2) ensure that regulators closely oversee how developers comply with these principles, and (3) urgently build up regulatory capacity. Over time, the approach should likely become more rule-based. Our recommendations are based on a number of assumptions, including (A) risks from frontier AI systems are poorly understood and rapidly evolving, (B) many safety practices are still nascent, and (C) frontier AI developers are best placed to innovate on safety practices.
Read more7/11/2024
🔍
0
Governance of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Companies
Johannes Schneider, Rene Abraham, Christian Meske
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), specifically large language models like ChatGPT, has swiftly entered organizations without adequate governance, posing both opportunities and risks. Despite extensive debates on GenAI's transformative nature and regulatory measures, limited research addresses organizational governance, encompassing technical and business perspectives. Our review paper fills this gap by surveying recent works with the purpose of developing a framework for GenAI governance within companies. This framework outlines the scope, objectives, and governance mechanisms tailored to harness business opportunities as well as mitigate risks associated with GenAI integration. Our research contributes a focused approach to GenAI governance, offering practical insights for companies navigating the challenges of GenAI adoption and highlighting research gaps.
Read more6/11/2024
🤖
0
Assessing the State of AI Policy
Joanna F. DeFranco, Luke Biersmith
The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) applications has accelerated rapidly. AI enabled technologies are facing the public in many ways including infrastructure, consumer products and home applications. Because many of these technologies present risks either in the form of physical injury, or bias, potentially yielding unfair outcomes, policy makers must consider the need for oversight. Most policymakers, however, lack the technical knowledge to judge whether an emerging AI technology is safe, effective, and requires oversight, therefore policy makers must depend on expert opinion. But policymakers are better served when, in addition to expert opinion, they have some general understanding of existing guidelines and regulations. This work provides an overview [the landscape] of AI legislation and directives at the international, U.S. state, city and federal levels. It also reviews relevant business standards, and technical society initiatives. Then an overlap and gap analysis are performed resulting in a reference guide that includes recommendations and guidance for future policy making.
Read more8/1/2024