An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence

Observers and practitioners of artificial intelligence (AI) have proposed an FDA-style licensing regime for the most advanced AI models, or 'frontier' models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of approval regulation -- that is, regulation of a product that combines experimental minima with government licensure conditioned partially or fully upon that experimentation -- to the regulation of frontier AI. There are a number of reasons to believe that approval regulation, simplistically applied, would be inapposite for frontier AI risks. Domains of weak fit include the difficulty of defining the regulated product, the presence of Knightian uncertainty or deep ambiguity about harms from AI, the potentially transmissible nature of risks, and distributed activities among actors involved in the AI lifecycle. We conclude by highlighting the role of policy learning and experimentation in regulatory development, describing how learning from other forms of AI regulation and improvements in evaluation and testing methods can help to overcome some of the challenges we identify.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Published
2024-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31633
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.74

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence

Daniel Carpenter, Carson Ezell
5 citations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
1.74
article

An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence

Daniel Carpenter, Carson Ezell
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Observers and practitioners of artificial intelligence (AI) have proposed an FDA-style licensing regime for the most advanced AI models, or 'frontier' models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of approval regulation -- that is, regulation of a product that combines experimental minima with government licensure conditioned partially or fully upon that experimentation -- to the regulation of frontier AI. There are a number of reasons to believe that approval regulation, simplistically applied, would be inapposite for frontier AI risks. Domains of weak fit include the difficulty of defining the regulated product, the presence of Knightian uncertainty or deep ambiguity about harms from AI, the potentially transmissible nature of risks, and distributed activities among actors involved in the AI lifecycle. We conclude by highlighting the role of policy learning and experimentation in regulatory development, describing how learning from other forms of AI regulation and improvements in evaluation and testing methods can help to overcome some of the challenges we identify.

Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietyVol. 7
Harvard University Press (US)
Open Philanthropy Project
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
1.74
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence — Daniel Carpenter, Carson Ezell · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS