Kyle A. Kilian

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.

Kyle A. Kilian, Christopher J. Ventura, Mark M. Bailey

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the most transformative technologies of the 21st century. The extent and scope of future AI capabilities remain a key uncertainty, with widespread disagreement on timelines and potential impacts. As nations and technology companies race toward greater complexity and autonomy in AI systems, there are concerns over the extent of integration and oversight of opaque AI decision processes. This is especially true in the subfield of machine learning (ML), where systems learn to optimize objectives without human assistance. Objectives can be imperfectly specified or executed in an unexpected or potentially harmful way. This becomes more concerning as systems increase in power and autonomy, where an abrupt capability jump could result in unexpected shifts in power dynamics or even catastrophic failures. This study presents a hierarchical complex systems framework to model AI risk and provide a template for alternative futures analysis. Survey data were collected from domain experts in the public and private sectors to classify AI impact and likelihood. The results show increased uncertainty over the powerful AI agent scenario, confidence in multiagent environments, and increased concern over AI alignment failures and influence-seeking behavior.

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.