May 17, 2024
This paper examines the use of training compute thresholds as a tool for governing artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We argue that compute thresholds serve as a valuable trigger for further evaluation of AI models, rather than being the sole determinant of the regulation. Key advantages of compute thresholds include their correlation with model capabilities and risks, quantifiability, ease of measurement, robustness to circumvention, knowability before model development and deployment, potential for external verification, and targeted scope. Compute thresholds provide a practical starting point for identifying potentially high-risk models and can be used as an initial filter in AI governance frameworks alongside other sector-specific regulations and broader governance measures.
Similar papers 1
February 13, 2024
Computing power, or "compute," is crucial for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. As a result, governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. For example, governments are investing in domestic compute capacity, controlling the flow of compute to competing countries, and subsidizing compute access to certain sectors. However, these efforts only scratch the surface of how compute can be used to govern...
July 8, 2024
At face value, this essay is about understanding a fairly esoteric governance tool called compute thresholds. However, in order to grapple with whether these thresholds will achieve anything, we must first understand how they came to be. This requires engaging with a decades-old debate at the heart of computer science progress, namely, is bigger always better? Hence, this essay may be of interest not only to policymakers and the wider public but also to computer scientists in...
January 3, 2025
Existing legal frameworks on AI rely on training compute thresholds as a proxy to identify potentially-dangerous AI models and trigger increased regulatory attention. In the United States, Section 4.2(a) of Executive Order 14110 instructs the Secretary of Commerce to require extensive reporting from developers of AI models above a certain training compute threshold. In the European Union, Article 51 of the AI Act establishes a presumption that AI models above a certain comput...
February 21, 2025
Policymakers are increasingly using development cost and compute as proxies for AI model capabilities and risks. Recent laws have introduced regulatory requirements that are contingent on specific thresholds. However, technical ambiguities in how to perform this accounting could create loopholes that undermine regulatory effectiveness. This paper proposes seven principles for designing practical AI cost and compute accounting standards that (1) reduce opportunities for strate...
January 27, 2025
This year, jurisdictions worldwide, including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and China, are set to enact or revise laws governing frontier AI. Their efforts largely rely on the assumption that increasing model scale through pretraining is the path to more advanced AI capabilities. Yet growing evidence suggests that this "pretraining paradigm" may be hitting a wall and major AI companies are turning to alternative approaches, like inference-time "re...
September 25, 2024
Current regulations on powerful AI capabilities are narrowly focused on "foundation" or "frontier" models. However, these terms are vague and inconsistently defined, leading to an unstable foundation for governance efforts. Critically, policy debates often fail to consider the data used with these models, despite the clear link between data and model performance. Even (relatively) "small" models that fall outside the typical definitions of foundation and frontier models can a...
March 13, 2024
As jurisdictions around the world take their first steps toward regulating the most powerful AI systems, such as the EU AI Act and the US Executive Order 14110, there is a growing need for effective enforcement mechanisms that can verify compliance and respond to violations. We argue that compute providers should have legal obligations and ethical responsibilities associated with AI development and deployment, both to provide secure infrastructure and to serve as intermediari...
October 12, 2024
In this report, we propose the implementation of national registries for frontier AI models as a foundational tool for AI governance. We explore the rationale, design, and implementation of such registries, drawing on comparisons with registries in analogous industries to make recommendations for a registry that is efficient, unintrusive, and which will bring AI governance closer to parity with the governmental insight into other high-impact industries. We explore key informa...
October 20, 2023
To address security and safety risks stemming from highly capable artificial intelligence (AI) models, we propose that the US government should ensure compute providers implement Know-Your-Customer (KYC) schemes. Compute - the computational power and infrastructure required to train and run these AI models - is emerging as a node for oversight. KYC, a standard developed by the banking sector to identify and verify client identity, could provide a mechanism for greater public ...
December 18, 2024
This paper argues that existing governance mechanisms for mitigating risks from AI systems are based on the `Big Compute' paradigm -- a set of assumptions about the relationship between AI capabilities and infrastructure -- that may not hold in the future. To address this, the paper introduces the `Proliferation' paradigm, which anticipates the rise of smaller, decentralized, open-sourced AI models which are easier to augment, and easier to train without being detected. It po...