Ross Gruetzemacher

Ross Gruetzemacher

Recent research demonstrating AI systems exhibiting deception and shutdown resistance suggests that AI loss of control (LOC) is an urgent policy concern , yet current literature focuses almost exclusively on alignment and prevention. To address this gap, this paper introduces a foundational framework and taxonomy for managing catastrophic AI LOC incidents. The taxonomy's first level distinguishes between scenarios where regaining control is 'extremely costly' versus 'impossible'. While impossible scenarios demand immediate resilience investments to fundamentally restrict an AI's attack surface , extremely costly scenarios require active incident management via Containment and Threat Neutralization. The framework further categorizes these manageable events into accidental LOC (requiring automated circuit-breaker responses) and adversarial LOC (requiring graduated escalatory measures). By mapping three severity classes to specific scenario matrices, this paper provides a concrete, proportional guide for managing unprecedented AI risks.

Ross Gruetzemacher, Alan Chan, Kevin Frazier et al.

Given rapid progress toward advanced AI and risks from frontier AI systems (advanced AI systems pushing the boundaries of the AI capabilities frontier), the creation and implementation of AI governance and regulatory schemes deserves prioritization and substantial investment. However, the status quo is untenable and, frankly, dangerous. A regulatory gap has permitted AI labs to conduct research, development, and deployment activities with minimal oversight. In response, frontier AI system evaluations have been proposed as a way of assessing risks from the development and deployment of frontier AI systems. Yet, the budding AI risk evaluation ecosystem faces significant coordination challenges, such as a limited diversity of evaluators, suboptimal allocation of effort, and perverse incentives. This paper proposes a solution in the form of an international consortium for AI risk evaluations, comprising both AI developers and third-party AI risk evaluators. Such a consortium could play a critical role in international efforts to mitigate societal-scale risks from advanced AI, including in managing responsible scaling policies and coordinated evaluation-based risk response. In this paper, we discuss the current evaluation ecosystem and its shortcomings, propose an international consortium for advanced AI risk evaluations, discuss issues regarding its implementation, discuss lessons that can be learnt from previous international institutions and existing proposals for international AI governance institutions, and, finally, we recommend concrete steps to advance the establishment of the proposed consortium: (i) solicit feedback from stakeholders, (ii) conduct additional research, (iii) conduct a workshop(s) for stakeholders, (iv) analyze feedback and create final proposal, (v) solicit funding, and (vi) create a consortium.

Ross Gruetzemacher, Toby D. Pilditch, Huigang Liang et al.

Amid growing concerns over AI's societal risks--ranging from civilizational collapse to misinformation and systemic bias--this study explores the perceptions of AI experts and the general US registered voters on the likelihood and impact of 18 specific AI risks, alongside their policy preferences for managing these risks. While both groups favor international oversight over national or corporate governance, our survey reveals a discrepancy: voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Specifically, our findings indicate that policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks, effectively nullifying the near-vs-long-term debate over AI risks. More broadly, our results will serve not only to enable more substantive policy discussions for preventing and mitigating AI risks, but also to underscore the challenge of consensus building for effective policy implementation.

Ross Gruetzemacher, David Paradice

AI is widely thought to be poised to transform business, yet current perceptions of the scope of this transformation may be myopic. Recent progress in natural language processing involving transformer language models (TLMs) offers a potential avenue for AI-driven business and societal transformation that is beyond the scope of what most currently foresee. We review this recent progress as well as recent literature utilizing text mining in top IS journals to develop an outline for how future IS research can benefit from these new techniques. Our review of existing IS literature reveals that suboptimal text mining techniques are prevalent and that the more advanced TLMs could be applied to enhance and increase IS research involving text data, and to enable new IS research topics, thus creating more value for the research community. This is possible because these techniques make it easier to develop very powerful custom systems and their performance is superior to existing methods for a wide range of tasks and applications. Further, multilingual language models make possible higher quality text analytics for research in multiple languages. We also identify new avenues for IS research, like language user interfaces, that may offer even greater potential for future IS research.

Ross Gruetzemacher, Florian Dorner, Niko Bernaola-Alvarez et al.

Forecasting AI progress is essential to reducing uncertainty in order to appropriately plan for research efforts on AI safety and AI governance. While this is generally considered to be an important topic, little work has been conducted on it and there is no published document that gives and objective overview of the field. Moreover, the field is very diverse and there is no published consensus regarding its direction. This paper describes the development of a research agenda for forecasting AI progress which utilized the Delphi technique to elicit and aggregate experts' opinions on what questions and methods to prioritize. The results of the Delphi are presented; the remainder of the paper follow the structure of these results, briefly reviewing relevant literature and suggesting future work for each topic. Experts indicated that a wide variety of methods should be considered for forecasting AI progress. Moreover, experts identified salient questions that were both general and completely unique to the problem of forecasting AI progress. Some of the highest priority topics include the validation of (partially unresolved) forecasts, how to make forecasting action-guiding and the quality of different performance metrics. While statistical methods seem more promising, there is also recognition that supplementing judgmental techniques can be quite beneficial.

Shahar Avin, Ross Gruetzemacher, James Fox

We present an innovative methodology for studying and teaching the impacts of AI through a role play game. The game serves two primary purposes: 1) training AI developers and AI policy professionals to reflect on and prepare for future social and ethical challenges related to AI and 2) exploring possible futures involving AI technology development, deployment, social impacts, and governance. While the game currently focuses on the inter relations between short --, mid and long term impacts of AI, it has potential to be adapted for a broad range of scenarios, exploring in greater depths issues of AI policy research and affording training within organizations. The game presented here has undergone two years of development and has been tested through over 30 events involving between 3 and 70 participants. The game is under active development, but preliminary findings suggest that role play is a promising methodology for both exploring AI futures and training individuals and organizations in thinking about, and reflecting on, the impacts of AI and strategic mistakes that can be avoided today.

Ross Gruetzemacher, Jess Whittlestone

The terms 'human-level artificial intelligence' and 'artificial general intelligence' are widely used to refer to the possibility of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) with potentially extreme impacts on society. These terms are poorly defined and do not necessarily indicate what is most important with respect to future societal impacts. We suggest that the term 'transformative AI' is a helpful alternative, reflecting the possibility that advanced AI systems could have very large impacts on society without reaching human-level cognitive abilities. To be most useful, however, more analysis of what it means for AI to be 'transformative' is needed. In this paper, we propose three different levels on which AI might be said to be transformative, associated with different levels of societal change. We suggest that these distinctions would improve conversations between policy makers and decision makers concerning the mid- to long-term impacts of advances in AI. Further, we feel this would have a positive effect on strategic foresight efforts involving advanced AI, which we expect to illuminate paths to alternative futures. We conclude with a discussion of the benefits of our new framework and by highlighting directions for future work in this area.

Ross Gruetzemacher, David Paradice

The only systematic mapping of the HLAI technical landscape was conducted at a workshop in 2009 [Adams et al., 2012]. However, the results from it were not what organizers had hoped for [Goertzel 2014, 2016], merely just a series of milestones, up to 50% of which could be argued to have been completed already. We consider two more recent articles outlining paths to human-like intelligence [Mikolov et al., 2016; Lake et al., 2017]. These offer technical and more refined assessments of the requirements for HLAI rather than just milestones. While useful, they also have limitations. To address these limitations we propose the use of alternative techniques for an updated systematic mapping of the paths to HLAI. The newly proposed alternative techniques can model complex paths of future technologies using intricate directed graphs. Specifically, there are two classes of alternative techniques that we consider: scenario mapping methods and techniques for eliciting expert opinion through digital platforms and crowdsourcing. We assess the viability and utility of both the previous and alternative techniques, finding that the proposed alternative techniques could be very beneficial in advancing the existing body of knowledge on the plausible frameworks for creating HLAI. In conclusion, we encourage discussion and debate to initiate efforts to use these proposed techniques for mapping paths to HLAI.

Ross Gruetzemacher, David Paradice, Kang Bok Lee

Transformative AI technologies have the potential to reshape critical aspects of society in the near future. However, in order to properly prepare policy initiatives for the arrival of such technologies accurate forecasts and timelines are necessary. A survey was administered to attendees of three AI conferences during the summer of 2018 (ICML, IJCAI and the HLAI conference). The survey included questions for estimating AI capabilities over the next decade, questions for forecasting five scenarios of transformative AI and questions concerning the impact of computational resources in AI research. Respondents indicated a median of 21.5% of human tasks (i.e., all tasks that humans are currently paid to do) can be feasibly automated now, and that this figure would rise to 40% in 5 years and 60% in 10 years. Median forecasts indicated a 50% probability of AI systems being capable of automating 90% of current human tasks in 25 years and 99% of current human tasks in 50 years. The conference of attendance was found to have a statistically significant impact on all forecasts, with attendees of HLAI providing more optimistic timelines with less uncertainty. These findings suggest that AI experts expect major advances in AI technology to continue over the next decade to a degree that will likely have profound transformative impacts on society.