Effective Mitigations for Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AI

The systemic risks posed by general-purpose AI models are a growing concern, yet the effectiveness of mitigations remains underexplored. Previous research has proposed frameworks for risk mitigation, but has left gaps in our understanding of the perceived effectiveness of measures for mitigating systemic risks. Our study addresses this gap by evaluating how experts perceive different mitigations that aim to reduce the systemic risks of general-purpose AI models. We surveyed 76 experts whose expertise spans AI safety; critical infrastructure; democratic processes; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks (CBRN); and discrimination and bias. Among 27 mitigations identified through a literature review, we find that a broad range of risk mitigation measures are perceived as effective in reducing various systemic risks and technically feasible by domain experts. In particular, three mitigation measures stand out: safety incident reports and security information sharing, third-party pre-deployment model audits, and pre-deployment risk assessments. These measures show both the highest expert agreement ratings (>60\%) across all four risk areas and are most frequently selected in experts' preferred combinations of measures (>40\%). The surveyed experts highlighted that external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency are key principles for effective mitigation of systemic risks. We provide policy recommendations for implementing the most promising measures, incorporating the qualitative contributions from experts. These insights should inform regulatory frameworks and industry practices for mitigating the systemic risks associated with general-purpose AI.

Operationalising the Definition of General Purpose AI Systems: Assessing Four Approaches

The European Union's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act is set to be a landmark legal instrument for regulating AI technology. While stakeholders have primarily focused on the governance of fixed purpose AI applications (also known as narrow AI), more attention is required to understand the nature of highly and broadly capable systems. As of the beginning of 2023, several definitions for General Purpose AI Systems (GPAIS) exist in relation to the AI Act, attempting to distinguish between systems with and without a fixed purpose. In this article, we operationalise these differences through the concept of "distinct tasks" and examine four approaches (quantity, performance, adaptability, and emergence) to determine whether an AI system should be classified as a GPAIS. We suggest that EU stakeholders use the four approaches as a starting point to discriminate between fixed-purpose and GPAIS.