Risk Reporting for Developers’ Internal AI Model Use
Proposes a harmonized standard for frontier developers' internal-use risk reports, aligned with California SB 53, New York RAISE Act, and the EU GPAI Code of Practice.
Research / Sources
IAPS
Policy research on advanced AI security and governance. www.iaps.ai
Research Report (25)Compute governance (23)Frontier Security (22)International governance & China (18)Policy and Standards (18)Erich Grunewald (16)Jam Kraprayoon (14)Link Post (14)Oliver Guest (11)Linkpost (10)Joe O'Brien (9)Chris Covino (8)Issue Brief (8)Oscar Delaney (7)Bill Anderson-Samways (6)Responses to RFIs/RFCs (6)Matthew Mittelsteadt (5)Renan Araujo (5)Theo Bearman (5)Blog Post (4)Cara Labrador (4)Shaun Ee (4)Asher Brass (3)International Strategy (3)Onni Aarne (3)Brianna Rosen (2)Clarissa Koh (2)Hamish Low (2)Karson Elmgren (2)Sambhav Maheshwari (2)Sarah Godek (2)Article (1)Cassia King (1)Commentary (1)Dave Banerjee (1)Jan Wehner (1)Request for Information (RFI) Response (1)Sumaya Nur Adan (1)
Focus All
Topic All
Date Any time
Policy Options for Preserving Chain of Thought Monitorability
A policy report arguing that competitive pressure could push AI developers away from human-readable chain-of-thought reasoning, undermining monitoring, and proposing governance options to preserve CoT monitorability.
AI Companies’ Safety Research Leaves Important Gaps. Governments and Philanthropists Should Fill Them.
An IAPS linkpost arguing that AI companies' safety research leaves important gaps and that governments and philanthropists should fund work to fill them.
The Future of the AI Summit Series
Examines the design of the international AI Summit series, including hosting, secretariat, participant selection, agenda and frequency, and proposes six recommendations to formalise it and strengthen its impact on frontier AI safety governance.
Bridging the Artificial Intelligence Governance Gap: The United States' and China's Divergent Approaches to Governing General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence
Compares US and Chinese policy approaches to governing general-purpose AI, identifying divergences in regulation focus, principles, and international governance, and their implications for cooperation on AI safety and security.
Key questions for the International Network of AI Safety Institutes
Commentary on how the International Network of AI Safety Institutes should set priorities, structure membership and coordinate on safety standards, information sharing and evaluations ahead of the November 2024 San Francisco convening.
Chinese AI Safety Institute Counterparts
Identifies Chinese government-linked institutions that could serve as counterparts to the US and UK AI Safety Institutes, based on a systematic review of open sources.
The Future of International Scientific Assessments of AI’s Risks
Argues that international scientific assessments of AI risks need a coordinated process among the UK-led report, the UN, the OECD and AI Safety Institutes, and discusses how these actors could work together.
Topics for Track IIs: What Can Be Discussed in Dialogues About Advanced AI Risks Without Leaking Sensitive Information?
Suggests agenda topics for US-China track II dialogues on advanced AI risks, such as developer best practices, national and international governance, that avoid leaking proliferation-sensitive information.
Safeguarding the Safeguards: How Best to Promote Alignment in the Public Interest
Argues that public-interest institutions should fund alignment work reducing accident and misuse risks, identifies four ways alignment efforts could backfire, and proposes mitigations.
International AI Safety Dialogues: Benefits, Risks, and Best Practices
A report offering best practices for international AI safety dialogues to reduce large-scale risks from advanced AI, including harmful outcomes to avoid and promising safety interventions to discuss.