Search

To accurately and confidently answer the question 'could an AI model or system increase biorisk', it is necessary to have both a sound theoretical threat model for how AI models or systems could increase biorisk and a robust method for testing that threat model. This paper provides an analysis of existing available research surrounding two AI and biorisk threat models: 1) access to information and planning via large language models (LLMs), and 2) the use of AI-enabled biological tools (BTs) in synthesizing novel biological artifacts. We find that existing studies around AI-related biorisk are nascent, often speculative in nature, or limited in terms of their methodological maturity and transparency. The available literature suggests that current LLMs and BTs do not pose an immediate risk, and more work is needed to develop rigorous approaches to understanding how future models could increase biorisks. We end with recommendations about how empirical work can be expanded to more precisely target biorisk and ensure rigor and validity of findings., Comment: Updated to correct author affiliations

In July 2023, New York City (NYC) initiated the first algorithm auditing system for commercial machine-learning systems. Local Law 144 (LL 144) mandates NYC-based employers using automated employment decision-making tools (AEDTs) in hiring to undergo annual bias audits conducted by an independent auditor. This paper examines lessons from LL 144 for other national algorithm auditing attempts. Through qualitative interviews with 16 experts and practitioners within the regime, we find that LL 144 has not effectively established an auditing regime. The law fails to clearly define key aspects, such as AEDTs and independent auditors, leading auditors, AEDT vendors, and companies using AEDTs to define the law's practical implementation in ways that failed to protect job applicants. Contributing factors include the law's flawed transparency-driven theory of change, industry lobbying narrowing the definition of AEDTs, practical and cultural challenges faced by auditors in accessing data, and wide disagreement over what constitutes a legitimate auditor, resulting in four distinct 'auditor roles.' We conclude with four recommendations for policymakers seeking to create similar bias auditing regimes, emphasizing clearer definitions, metrics, and increased accountability. By exploring LL 144 through the lens of auditors, our paper advances the evidence base around audit as an accountability mechanism, providing guidance for policymakers seeking to create similar regimes., Comment: 15 pages

In recent years, discussions of responsible AI practices have seen growing support for "participatory AI" approaches, intended to involve members of the public in the design and development of AI systems. Prior research has identified a lack of standardised methods or approaches for how to use participatory approaches in the AI development process. At present, there is a dearth of evidence on attitudes to and approaches for participation in the sites driving major AI developments: commercial AI labs. Through 12 semi-structured interviews with industry practitioners and subject-matter experts, this paper explores how commercial AI labs understand participatory AI approaches and the obstacles they have faced implementing these practices in the development of AI systems and research. We find that while interviewees view participation as a normative project that helps achieve "societally beneficial" AI systems, practitioners face numerous barriers to embedding participatory approaches in their companies: participation is expensive and resource intensive, it is "atomised" within companies, there is concern about exploitation, there is no incentive to be transparent about its adoption, and it is complicated by a lack of clear context. These barriers result in a piecemeal approach to participation that confers no decision-making power to participants and has little ongoing impact for AI labs. This papers contribution is to provide novel empirical research on the implementation of public participation in commercial AI labs, and shed light on the current challenges of using participatory approaches in this context., Comment: Accepted to 2023 FAccT Conference

Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm., Comment: Forthcoming in Hacker, Engel, Hammer, Mittelstadt (eds), Oxford Handbook on the Foundations and Regulation of Generative AI. Oxford University Press