Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.12999 v1 pith:TMHGZWGM submitted 2024-05-21 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CR

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CR
keywords genaitechnologyregulatorysafetytopicworkshopcomprehensivegovernments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) brings about transformative potential across sectors, but its dual-use nature also amplifies risks. Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety. China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU) are at the forefront with initiatives like the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act, respectively. However, the rapid evolution of GenAI capabilities often outpaces the development of comprehensive safety measures, creating a gap between regulatory needs and technical advancements. A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison (UW-Madison), and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology. The diverse stakeholders of the GenAI space -- from the public and governments to academia and industry -- make any safety measures under consideration more complex, as both technical feasibility and regulatory guidance must be realized. This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress? How technology can evolve to meet regulatory standards? The interplay between legislation and technology is a very vast topic, and we don't claim that this paper is a comprehensive treatment on this topic. This paper is meant to capture findings based on the workshop, and hopefully, can guide discussion on this topic.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. IConMark: Robust Interpretable Concept-Based Watermark For AI Images

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IConMark adds preselected, human-readable objects to AI images via prompt engineering and detects them with a vision-language model, achieving higher AUROC than noise-based watermarks on tested augmentations.

  2. "AI Watermarking": Bridging Policy Discourse and Technical Capabilities

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A qualitative analysis of legislative and policy documents on AI content transparency identifies critical disconnects between policy requirements and technical capabilities in watermarking and detection.

Pith tools