4.3 Article

Generative AI models should include detection mechanisms as a condition for public release

期刊

ETHICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10676-023-09728-4

关键词

Generative AI; AI regulation; AI ethics; AI social impacts; Foundation models

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The new wave of 'foundation models' represents a significant advancement in AI technology. However, their use also introduces new risks, prompting discussions about potential regulatory mechanisms. This paper proposes a principle that organizations developing foundation models for public use must demonstrate a reliable content detection mechanism. This requirement is technically feasible and would play a crucial role in mitigating risks associated with new AI models. Further input from policymakers and researchers is needed.
The new wave of 'foundation models'-general-purpose generative AI models, for production of text (e.g., ChatGPT) or images (e.g., MidJourney)-represent a dramatic advance in the state of the art for AI. But their use also introduces a range of new risks, which has prompted an ongoing conversation about possible regulatory mechanisms. Here we propose a specific principle that should be incorporated into legislation: that any organization developing a foundation model intended for public use must demonstrate a reliable detection mechanism for the content it generates, as a condition of its public release. The detection mechanism should be made publicly available in a tool that allows users to query, for an arbitrary item of content, whether the item was generated (wholly or partly) by the model. In this paper, we argue that this requirement is technically feasible and would play an important role in reducing certain risks from new AI models in many domains. We also outline a number of options for the tool's design, and summarize a number of points where further input from policymakers and researchers would be required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据