Generative AI Needs Adaptive Governance
0
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Generative AI, like large language models, pose unique challenges for governance and regulation compared to traditional AI systems.
- Existing AI governance frameworks may be inadequate for the rapid progress and widespread impact of generative AI.
- Adaptive and proactive governance approaches are needed to address the evolving risks and opportunities of generative AI.
Plain English Explanation
Generative AI models, such as large language models, have capabilities that are fundamentally different from traditional AI systems. These models can generate human-like text, images, and other content, which introduces new risks and challenges around societal adaptation, safety, and distributed agency.
Existing approaches to AI governance, which focus on issues like algorithmic bias and privacy, may not be sufficient to address the unique properties of generative AI. A more adaptive and proactive governance framework is needed to manage the extreme risks posed by these rapidly evolving technologies.
Technical Explanation
The paper argues that generative AI models, such as large language models, possess capabilities that fundamentally differ from traditional, narrow AI systems. These models can generate human-like text, images, and other content, which introduces new challenges around safety, security, and societal impact that are not adequately addressed by existing AI governance frameworks.
The authors contrast traditional AI governance, which has focused on issues like algorithmic bias and data privacy, with the unique characteristics of generative AI. Generative models can be used to create misinformation, manipulate media, and automate tasks in ways that have far-reaching societal consequences. The rapid progress of these technologies also outpaces the ability of current governance structures to respond effectively.
The paper proposes that a more adaptive and proactive approach to AI governance is needed to address the evolving risks and opportunities of generative AI. This could involve mechanisms for model auditing, impact assessments, and rapid response to emerging issues. The authors also emphasize the importance of broad stakeholder engagement and multidisciplinary collaboration in developing effective governance strategies.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the need to rethink AI governance in the face of rapid progress in generative AI capabilities. The authors correctly identify that existing frameworks may be ill-equipped to handle the unique challenges posed by these technologies, such as the potential for abuse, manipulation, and unintended societal consequences.
However, the paper could have delved deeper into the specific governance mechanisms and strategies required to address these challenges. While it highlights the need for adaptability and proactivity, more detailed recommendations or frameworks for implementation would have strengthened the analysis.
Additionally, the paper does not address the inherent tensions and tradeoffs that may arise in developing effective governance approaches. For example, balancing the need for transparency and oversight with the protection of intellectual property or the commercial interests of AI developers. Exploring these complexities would have added further depth to the critical analysis.
Conclusion
The rapid progress of generative AI technologies, such as large language models, poses unique challenges for governance and regulation that existing frameworks may be ill-equipped to handle. A more adaptive and proactive approach to AI governance is needed to address the evolving risks and opportunities presented by these powerful, versatile models.
By recognizing the fundamental differences between generative AI and traditional AI systems, policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders can work to develop governance strategies that are better suited to the dynamic and potentially disruptive nature of these technologies. Doing so will be crucial in ensuring the responsible development and deployment of generative AI for the benefit of society.
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
🤖
0
Generative AI Needs Adaptive Governance
Anka Reuel, Trond Arne Undheim
Because of the speed of its development, broad scope of application, and its ability to augment human performance, generative AI challenges the very notions of governance, trust, and human agency. The technology's capacity to mimic human knowledge work, feedback loops including significant uptick in users, research, investor, policy, and media attention, data and compute resources, all lead to rapidly increasing capabilities. For those reasons, adaptive governance, where AI governance and AI co-evolve, is essential for governing generative AI. In sharp contrast to traditional governance's regulatory regimes that are based on a mix of rigid one-and-done provisions for disclosure, registration and risk management, which in the case of AI carry the potential for regulatory misalignment, this paper argues that generative AI calls for adaptive governance. We define adaptive governance in the context of AI and outline an adaptive AI governance framework. We outline actors, roles, as well as both shared and actors-specific policy activities. We further provide examples of how the framework could be operationalized in practice. We then explain that the adaptive AI governance stance is not without its risks and limitations, such as insufficient oversight, insufficient depth, regulatory uncertainty, and regulatory capture, and provide potential approaches to fix these shortcomings.
Read more6/10/2024
🔍
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
Navigating Governance Paradigms: A Cross-Regional Comparative Study of Generative AI Governance Processes & Principles
Jose Luna, Ivan Tan, Xiaofei Xie, Lingxiao Jiang
As Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies evolve at an unprecedented rate, global governance approaches struggle to keep pace with the technology, highlighting a critical issue in the governance adaptation of significant challenges. Depicting the nuances of nascent and diverse governance approaches based on risks, rules, outcomes, principles, or a mix across different regions around the globe is fundamental to discern discrepancies and convergences and to shed light on specific limitations that need to be addressed, thereby facilitating the safe and trustworthy adoption of GenAI. In response to the need and the evolving nature of GenAI, this paper seeks to provide a collective view of different governance approaches around the world. Our research introduces a Harmonized GenAI Framework, H-GenAIGF, based on the current governance approaches of six regions: European Union (EU), United States (US), China (CN), Canada (CA), United Kingdom (UK), and Singapore (SG). We have identified four constituents, fifteen processes, twenty-five sub-processes, and nine principles that aid the governance of GenAI, thus providing a comprehensive perspective on the current state of GenAI governance. In addition, we present a comparative analysis to facilitate the identification of common ground and distinctions based on the coverage of the processes by each region. The results show that risk-based approaches allow for better coverage of the processes, followed by mixed approaches. Other approaches lag behind, covering less than 50% of the processes. Most prominently, the analysis demonstrates that among the regions, only one process aligns across all approaches, highlighting the lack of consistent and executable provisions. Moreover, our case study on ChatGPT reveals process coverage deficiency, showing that harmonization of approaches is necessary to find alignment for GenAI governance.
Read more9/2/2024
🤖
0
A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI
Jakob Mokander, Justin Curl, Mihir Kshirsagar
The widespread use of generative AI systems is coupled with significant ethical and social challenges. As a result, policymakers, academic researchers, and social advocacy groups have all called for such systems to be audited. However, existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems, which display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. In this chapter, we address that gap by outlining a novel blueprint for how to audit such systems. Specifically, we propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits (of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems), model audits (of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release), and application audits (of applications based on top of generative AI systems) complement and inform each other. We show how audits on these three levels, when conducted in a structured and coordinated manner, can be a feasible and effective mechanism for identifying and managing some of the ethical and social risks posed by generative AI systems. That said, it is important to remain realistic about what auditing can reasonably be expected to achieve. For this reason, the chapter also discusses the limitations not only of our three-layered approach but also of the prospect of auditing generative AI systems at all. Ultimately, this chapter seeks to expand the methodological toolkit available to technology providers and policymakers who wish to analyse and evaluate generative AI systems from technical, ethical, and legal perspectives.
Read more7/9/2024