Enabling Principles for AI Governance – Center for Security and Emerging Technology
Owen Daniels
Dewey Murdick
How to govern artificial intelligence is a concern that is rightfully top of mind for lawmakers and policymakers.To govern AI effectively, regulators must 1) know the terrain of AI risk and harm by tracking incidents and collecting data; 2) develop their own AI literacy and build better public understanding of the benefits and risks; and 3) preserve adaptability and agility by developing policies that can be updated as AI evolves.
The question of how to govern artificial intelligence (AI) is rightfully top of mind for U.S. lawmakers and policymakers alike. Strides in the development of high-powered large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT/GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot have demonstrated the potentially transformative impact that AI could have on society, replete with opportunities and risks. At the same time, international partners in Europe and competitors like China are taking their own steps toward AI governance.1 In the United States and abroad, public analyses and speculation about AI’s potential impact generally lie along a spectrum ranging from utopian at one end—AI as enormously beneficial for society—to dystopian on the other—an existential risk that could lead to the end of humanity—and many nuanced positions in between.
LLMs grabbed public attention in 2023 and sparked concern about existential AI risks, but other models and applications, such as prediction models, natural language processing (NLP) tools, and autonomous navigation systems, could also lead to myriad harms today. Challenges include discriminatory model outputs based on bad or skewed input data, risks from AI-enabled military weapon systems, as well as accidents with AI-enabled autonomous systems.
Given AI’s multifaceted potential, in the United States, a flexible approach to AI governance offers the most likely path to success. The different development trajectories, risks, and harms from various AI systems make the prospect of a one-sizefits- all regulatory approach implausible, if not impossible. Regulators should begin to build strength through the heavy lifting of addressing today’s challenges. Even if early regulatory efforts need to be revised regularly, the cycle of repetition and feedback will lead to improved muscle memory, crucial to governing more advanced future systems whose risks are not yet well understood.
President Biden’s October 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, as well as proposed bipartisan AI regulatory frameworks, have provided useful starting points for establishing a comprehensive approach to AI governance in the United States.2 These stand atop existing statements and policies by federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among others.3
In order for future AI governance efforts to prove most effective, we offer three principles for U.S. policymakers to follow. We have drawn these thematic principles Center for Security and Emerging Technology | 2 from across CSET’s wide body of original, in-depth research, as well as granular findings and specific recommendations on different aspects of AI, which we cite throughout this report. They are:
These principles are interlinked and self-reinforcing: continually updating the understanding of the AI landscape will help lawmakers remain agile and responsive to the latest advancements, and inform evolving risk calculations and consensus.
July 2024
Assessment
Compete
Peer Watch
AI capabilities are evolving quickly and pose novel—and likely significant—risks. In these rapidly changing conditions, how can policymakers effectively anticipate and manage risks from the most advanced and capable AI systems at the frontier of… Read More
How can policymakers credibly reveal and assess intentions in the field of artificial intelligence? Policymakers can send credible signals of their intent by making pledges or committing to undertaking certain actions for which they will… Read More
Real-world harms caused by the use of AI technologies are widespread. Tracking and analyzing them improves our understanding of the variety of harms and the circumstances that lead to their occurrence once AI systems are… Read More
This brief provides a framework for a systems-oriented approach to technology and national security strategy. It identifies and discusses the tensions among three strategic goals of technology and national security policy—driving technological innovation, impeding adversaries’… Read More
The Center for Security and Emerging Technology within Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service provides decision-makers with data-driven analysis on the security implications of emerging technologies.
cset@georgetown.edu
christa.bennett@georgetown.edu
This article was autogenerated from a news feed from CDO TIMES selected high quality news and research sources. There was no editorial review conducted beyond that by CDO TIMES staff. Need help with any of the topics in our articles? Schedule your free CDO TIMES Tech Navigator call today to stay ahead of the curve and gain insider advantages to propel your business!
Dewey Murdick
How to govern artificial intelligence is a concern that is rightfully top of mind for lawmakers and policymakers.To govern AI effectively, regulators must 1) know the terrain of AI risk and harm by tracking incidents and collecting data; 2) develop their own AI literacy and build better public understanding of the benefits and risks; and 3) preserve adaptability and agility by developing policies that can be updated as AI evolves.
The question of how to govern artificial intelligence (AI) is rightfully top of mind for U.S. lawmakers and policymakers alike. Strides in the development of high-powered large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT/GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot have demonstrated the potentially transformative impact that AI could have on society, replete with opportunities and risks. At the same time, international partners in Europe and competitors like China are taking their own steps toward AI governance.1 In the United States and abroad, public analyses and speculation about AI’s potential impact generally lie along a spectrum ranging from utopian at one end—AI as enormously beneficial for society—to dystopian on the other—an existential risk that could lead to the end of humanity—and many nuanced positions in between.
LLMs grabbed public attention in 2023 and sparked concern about existential AI risks, but other models and applications, such as prediction models, natural language processing (NLP) tools, and autonomous navigation systems, could also lead to myriad harms today. Challenges include discriminatory model outputs based on bad or skewed input data, risks from AI-enabled military weapon systems, as well as accidents with AI-enabled autonomous systems.
Given AI’s multifaceted potential, in the United States, a flexible approach to AI governance offers the most likely path to success. The different development trajectories, risks, and harms from various AI systems make the prospect of a one-sizefits- all regulatory approach implausible, if not impossible. Regulators should begin to build strength through the heavy lifting of addressing today’s challenges. Even if early regulatory efforts need to be revised regularly, the cycle of repetition and feedback will lead to improved muscle memory, crucial to governing more advanced future systems whose risks are not yet well understood.
President Biden’s October 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, as well as proposed bipartisan AI regulatory frameworks, have provided useful starting points for establishing a comprehensive approach to AI governance in the United States.2 These stand atop existing statements and policies by federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, as well as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among others.3
In order for future AI governance efforts to prove most effective, we offer three principles for U.S. policymakers to follow. We have drawn these thematic principles Center for Security and Emerging Technology | 2 from across CSET’s wide body of original, in-depth research, as well as granular findings and specific recommendations on different aspects of AI, which we cite throughout this report. They are:
These principles are interlinked and self-reinforcing: continually updating the understanding of the AI landscape will help lawmakers remain agile and responsive to the latest advancements, and inform evolving risk calculations and consensus.
July 2024
Assessment
Compete
Peer Watch
AI capabilities are evolving quickly and pose novel—and likely significant—risks. In these rapidly changing conditions, how can policymakers effectively anticipate and manage risks from the most advanced and capable AI systems at the frontier of… Read More
How can policymakers credibly reveal and assess intentions in the field of artificial intelligence? Policymakers can send credible signals of their intent by making pledges or committing to undertaking certain actions for which they will… Read More
Real-world harms caused by the use of AI technologies are widespread. Tracking and analyzing them improves our understanding of the variety of harms and the circumstances that lead to their occurrence once AI systems are… Read More
This brief provides a framework for a systems-oriented approach to technology and national security strategy. It identifies and discusses the tensions among three strategic goals of technology and national security policy—driving technological innovation, impeding adversaries’… Read More
The Center for Security and Emerging Technology within Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service provides decision-makers with data-driven analysis on the security implications of emerging technologies.
cset@georgetown.edu
christa.bennett@georgetown.edu
This article was autogenerated from a news feed from CDO TIMES selected high quality news and research sources. There was no editorial review conducted beyond that by CDO TIMES staff. Need help with any of the topics in our articles? Schedule your free CDO TIMES Tech Navigator call today to stay ahead of the curve and gain insider advantages to propel your business!
