-
Trust AI Regulation? Discerning users are vital to build trust and effective AI regulation
Authors:
Zainab Alalawi,
Paolo Bova,
Theodor Cimpeanu,
Alessandro Di Stefano,
Manh Hong Duong,
Elias Fernandez Domingos,
The Anh Han,
Marcus Krellner,
Bianca Ogbo,
Simon T. Powers,
Filippo Zimmaro
Abstract:
There is general agreement that some form of regulation is necessary both for AI creators to be incentivised to develop trustworthy systems, and for users to actually trust those systems. But there is much debate about what form these regulations should take and how they should be implemented. Most work in this area has been qualitative, and has not been able to make formal predictions. Here, we p…
▽ More
There is general agreement that some form of regulation is necessary both for AI creators to be incentivised to develop trustworthy systems, and for users to actually trust those systems. But there is much debate about what form these regulations should take and how they should be implemented. Most work in this area has been qualitative, and has not been able to make formal predictions. Here, we propose that evolutionary game theory can be used to quantitatively model the dilemmas faced by users, AI creators, and regulators, and provide insights into the possible effects of different regulatory regimes. We show that creating trustworthy AI and user trust requires regulators to be incentivised to regulate effectively. We demonstrate the effectiveness of two mechanisms that can achieve this. The first is where governments can recognise and reward regulators that do a good job. In that case, if the AI system is not too risky for users then some level of trustworthy development and user trust evolves. We then consider an alternative solution, where users can condition their trust decision on the effectiveness of the regulators. This leads to effective regulation, and consequently the development of trustworthy AI and user trust, provided that the cost of implementing regulations is not too high. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the effect of different regulatory regimes from an evolutionary game theoretic perspective.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Sharpness for the Benson-Solomon fusion systems
Authors:
Marco Praderio Bova
Abstract:
We develop tools to prove Díaz and Park's sharpness conjecture (see [8]) for fusion systems admitting tame families of fusion subsystems (see Theorem A). We use such tools to prove the conjecture for all Benson-Solomon fusion systems (see Theorem B) thus completing the work started by Henke, Libman and Lynd in [14, Theorems 1.1 and 1.4].
We develop tools to prove Díaz and Park's sharpness conjecture (see [8]) for fusion systems admitting tame families of fusion subsystems (see Theorem A). We use such tools to prove the conjecture for all Benson-Solomon fusion systems (see Theorem B) thus completing the work started by Henke, Libman and Lynd in [14, Theorems 1.1 and 1.4].
△ Less
Submitted 18 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safety
Authors:
Paolo Bova,
Alessandro Di Stefano,
The Anh Han
Abstract:
In the context of rapid discoveries by leaders in AI, governments must consider how to design regulation that matches the increasing pace of new AI capabilities. Regulatory Markets for AI is a proposal designed with adaptability in mind. It involves governments setting outcome-based targets for AI companies to achieve, which they can show by purchasing services from a market of private regulators.…
▽ More
In the context of rapid discoveries by leaders in AI, governments must consider how to design regulation that matches the increasing pace of new AI capabilities. Regulatory Markets for AI is a proposal designed with adaptability in mind. It involves governments setting outcome-based targets for AI companies to achieve, which they can show by purchasing services from a market of private regulators. We use an evolutionary game theory model to explore the role governments can play in building a Regulatory Market for AI systems that deters reckless behaviour. We warn that it is alarmingly easy to stumble on incentives which would prevent Regulatory Markets from achieving this goal. These 'Bounty Incentives' only reward private regulators for catching unsafe behaviour. We argue that AI companies will likely learn to tailor their behaviour to how much effort regulators invest, discouraging regulators from innovating. Instead, we recommend that governments always reward regulators, except when they find that those regulators failed to detect unsafe behaviour that they should have. These 'Vigilant Incentives' could encourage private regulators to find innovative ways to evaluate cutting-edge AI systems.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Green correspondence on centric Mackey functor over fusion systems
Authors:
Marco Praderio Bova
Abstract:
In this paper we give a definition of (centric) Mackey functor over a fusion system which generalizes the notion of Mackey functor over a group. In this context we prove that, given some conditions on a related ring, the centric Burnside ring over a fusion system (as defined by Diaz and Libman) acts on any centric Mackey functor. We also prove that the Green correspondence holds for centric Mackey…
▽ More
In this paper we give a definition of (centric) Mackey functor over a fusion system which generalizes the notion of Mackey functor over a group. In this context we prove that, given some conditions on a related ring, the centric Burnside ring over a fusion system (as defined by Diaz and Libman) acts on any centric Mackey functor. We also prove that the Green correspondence holds for centric Mackey functors over fusion systems. As a means to prove this we introduce a notion of relative projectivity for centric Mackey functors over fusion systems and provide a decomposition of a particular product in $\mathcal{O}\left(\mathcal{F}^c\right)_{\sqcup}$ in terms of the product in $\mathcal{O}\left(N_{\mathcal{F}}\left(H\right)^c\right)_{\sqcup}$.
△ Less
Submitted 2 September, 2023; v1 submitted 15 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Safe Transformative AI via a Windfall Clause
Authors:
Paolo Bova,
Jonas Emanuel Müller,
Benjamin Harack
Abstract:
Society could soon see transformative artificial intelligence (TAI). Models of competition for TAI show firms face strong competitive pressure to deploy TAI systems before they are safe. This paper explores a proposed solution to this problem, a Windfall Clause, where developers commit to donating a significant portion of any eventual extremely large profits to good causes. However, a key challeng…
▽ More
Society could soon see transformative artificial intelligence (TAI). Models of competition for TAI show firms face strong competitive pressure to deploy TAI systems before they are safe. This paper explores a proposed solution to this problem, a Windfall Clause, where developers commit to donating a significant portion of any eventual extremely large profits to good causes. However, a key challenge for a Windfall Clause is that firms must have reason to join one. Firms must also believe these commitments are credible. We extend a model of TAI competition with a Windfall Clause to show how firms and policymakers can design a Windfall Clause which overcomes these challenges. Encouragingly, firms benefit from joining a Windfall Clause under a wide range of scenarios. We also find that firms join the Windfall Clause more often when the competition is more dangerous. Even when firms learn each other's capabilities, firms rarely wish to withdraw their support for the Windfall Clause. These three findings strengthen the case for using a Windfall Clause to promote the safe development of TAI.
△ Less
Submitted 28 August, 2021; v1 submitted 20 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
