CONSENT: A Negotiation Framework for Leveraging User Flexibility in Vehicle-to-Building Charging under Uncertainty

The growth of Electric Vehicles (EVs) creates a conflict in vehicle-to-building (V2B) settings between building operators, who face high energy costs from uncoordinated charging, and drivers, who prioritize convenience and a full charge. To resolve this, we propose a negotiation-based framework that, by design, guarantees voluntary participation, strategy-proofness, and budget feasibility. It transforms EV charging into a strategic resource by offering drivers a range of incentive-backed options for modest flexibility in their departure time or requested state of charge (SoC). Our framework is calibrated with user survey data and validated using real operational data from a commercial building and an EV manufacturer. Simulations show that our negotiation protocol creates a mutually beneficial outcome: lowering the building operator's costs by over 3.5\% compared to an optimized, non-negotiating smart charging policy, while simultaneously reducing user charging expenses by 22\% below the utility's retail energy rate. By aligning operator and EV user objectives, our framework provides a strategic bridge between energy and mobility systems, transforming EV charging from a source of operational friction into a platform for collaboration and shared savings.

The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards

Auditing of AI systems is a promising way to understand and manage ethical problems and societal risks associated with contemporary AI systems, as well as some anticipated future risks. Efforts to develop standards for auditing Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have therefore understandably gained momentum. However, we argue that creating auditing standards is not just insufficient, but actively harmful by proliferating unheeded and inconsistent standards, especially in light of the rapid evolution and ethical and safety challenges of AI. Instead, the paper proposes the establishment of an AI Audit Standards Board, responsible for developing and updating auditing methods and standards in line with the evolving nature of AI technologies. Such a body would ensure that auditing practices remain relevant, robust, and responsive to the rapid advancements in AI. The paper argues that such a governance structure would also be helpful for maintaining public trust in AI and for promoting a culture of safety and ethical responsibility within the AI industry. Throughout the paper, we draw parallels with other industries, including safety-critical industries like aviation and nuclear energy, as well as more prosaic ones such as financial accounting and pharmaceuticals. AI auditing should emulate those fields, and extend beyond technical assessments to include ethical considerations and stakeholder engagement, but we explain that this is not enough; emulating other fields' governance mechanisms for these processes, and for audit standards creation, is a necessity. We also emphasize the importance of auditing the entire development process of AI systems, not just the final products...

An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI

Given rapid progress toward advanced AI and risks from frontier AI systems (advanced AI systems pushing the boundaries of the AI capabilities frontier), the creation and implementation of AI governance and regulatory schemes deserves prioritization and substantial investment. However, the status quo is untenable and, frankly, dangerous. A regulatory gap has permitted AI labs to conduct research, development, and deployment activities with minimal oversight. In response, frontier AI system evaluations have been proposed as a way of assessing risks from the development and deployment of frontier AI systems. Yet, the budding AI risk evaluation ecosystem faces significant coordination challenges, such as a limited diversity of evaluators, suboptimal allocation of effort, and perverse incentives. This paper proposes a solution in the form of an international consortium for AI risk evaluations, comprising both AI developers and third-party AI risk evaluators. Such a consortium could play a critical role in international efforts to mitigate societal-scale risks from advanced AI, including in managing responsible scaling policies and coordinated evaluation-based risk response. In this paper, we discuss the current evaluation ecosystem and its shortcomings, propose an international consortium for advanced AI risk evaluations, discuss issues regarding its implementation, discuss lessons that can be learnt from previous international institutions and existing proposals for international AI governance institutions, and, finally, we recommend concrete steps to advance the establishment of the proposed consortium: (i) solicit feedback from stakeholders, (ii) conduct additional research, (iii) conduct a workshop(s) for stakeholders, (iv) analyze feedback and create final proposal, (v) solicit funding, and (vi) create a consortium.