Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology

Read original: arXiv:2407.12999 - Published 7/19/2024 by Mihai Christodorescu, Ryan Craven, Soheil Feizi, Neil Gong, Mia Hoffmann, Somesh Jha, Zhengyuan Jiang, Mehrdad Saberi Kamarposhti, John Mitchell, Jessica Newman and 4 others
Total Score

0

๐Ÿงช

Sign in to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • The rapid advancement of Generative AI (GenAI) technology has the potential to transform various sectors, but its dual-use nature also amplifies risks.
  • Governments worldwide are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, seeking to balance innovation and safety.
  • China, the United States, and the European Union have introduced initiatives like the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act to address this challenge.
  • However, the pace of GenAI capability evolution often outpaces the development of comprehensive safety measures, creating a gap between regulatory needs and technical advancements.

Plain English Explanation

Generative AI is a powerful technology that can create new content like text, images, and even videos. While this technology has the potential to revolutionize many industries, it also comes with risks. Governments around the world are trying to figure out how to regulate GenAI to encourage innovation while also keeping people safe.

Countries like China, the United States, and the European Union have started creating rules and guidelines for GenAI, such as the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act. However, GenAI is advancing so quickly that the regulations can't always keep up. This creates a gap between what the technology can do and what the rules allow.

Technical Explanation

A workshop co-organized by Google, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Stanford University aimed to bridge the gap between GenAI policy and technology. The diverse stakeholders involved, from the public and governments to academia and industry, make the process of developing safety measures more complex, as both technical feasibility and regulatory guidance must be considered.

The workshop discussions addressed questions such as: How can regulation be designed without hindering technological progress? And how can technology evolve to meet regulatory standards? The interplay between legislation and technology is a vast topic, and this paper is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Instead, it summarizes the findings from the workshop to guide further discussion on this important issue.

Critical Analysis

The paper highlights the challenges in regulating rapidly evolving GenAI technology. While the initiatives mentioned, such as the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act, are steps in the right direction, the pace of technological change may outpace the development of comprehensive safety measures.

One potential concern raised in the paper is the need to balance innovation and safety. Overly restrictive regulations could hinder the development of GenAI technology and its potential benefits. Additionally, the paper notes the complexity of the issue, as it involves a diverse set of stakeholders with different interests and priorities.

Further research and collaboration between policymakers, technologists, and other stakeholders may be necessary to develop effective and adaptable regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with the rapid advancements in GenAI. The need for technical research talent and the challenges of AutoML in the wild may also be important considerations in this process.

Conclusion

The rise of Generative AI presents both transformative potential and amplified risks. Governments are working to regulate GenAI, but the rapid evolution of the technology often outpaces the development of comprehensive safety measures. The workshop discussed in this paper aimed to bridge the gap between GenAI policy and technology, highlighting the complexities involved in balancing innovation and safety. Continued collaboration and adaptable regulatory frameworks will be crucial as the field of GenAI continues to advance.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on ๐• โ†’

Related Papers

๐Ÿงช

Total Score

0

Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology

Mihai Christodorescu, Ryan Craven, Soheil Feizi, Neil Gong, Mia Hoffmann, Somesh Jha, Zhengyuan Jiang, Mehrdad Saberi Kamarposhti, John Mitchell, Jessica Newman, Emelia Probasco, Yanjun Qi, Khawaja Shams, Matthew Turek

The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) brings about transformative potential across sectors, but its dual-use nature also amplifies risks. Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety. China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU) are at the forefront with initiatives like the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act, respectively. However, the rapid evolution of GenAI capabilities often outpaces the development of comprehensive safety measures, creating a gap between regulatory needs and technical advancements. A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison (UW-Madison), and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology. The diverse stakeholders of the GenAI space -- from the public and governments to academia and industry -- make any safety measures under consideration more complex, as both technical feasibility and regulatory guidance must be realized. This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress? How technology can evolve to meet regulatory standards? The interplay between legislation and technology is a very vast topic, and we don't claim that this paper is a comprehensive treatment on this topic. This paper is meant to capture findings based on the workshop, and hopefully, can guide discussion on this topic.

Read more

7/19/2024

๐Ÿ”

Total Score

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 more

6/11/2024

๐Ÿค–

Total Score

0

SecGenAI: Enhancing Security of Cloud-based Generative AI Applications within Australian Critical Technologies of National Interest

Christoforus Yoga Haryanto, Minh Hieu Vu, Trung Duc Nguyen, Emily Lomempow, Yulia Nurliana, Sona Taheri

The rapid advancement of Generative AI (GenAI) technologies offers transformative opportunities within Australia's critical technologies of national interest while introducing unique security challenges. This paper presents SecGenAI, a comprehensive security framework for cloud-based GenAI applications, with a focus on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. SecGenAI addresses functional, infrastructure, and governance requirements, integrating end-to-end security analysis to generate specifications emphasizing data privacy, secure deployment, and shared responsibility models. Aligned with Australian Privacy Principles, AI Ethics Principles, and guidelines from the Australian Cyber Security Centre and Digital Transformation Agency, SecGenAI mitigates threats such as data leakage, adversarial attacks, and model inversion. The framework's novel approach combines advanced machine learning techniques with robust security measures, ensuring compliance with Australian regulations while enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of GenAI systems. This research contributes to the field of intelligent systems by providing actionable strategies for secure GenAI implementation in industry, fostering innovation in AI applications, and safeguarding national interests.

Read more

7/2/2024

๐Ÿค–

Total Score

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 more

9/2/2024