REVIEW 1 cited by
Defending Compute Thresholds Against Legal Loopholes
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
Defending Compute Thresholds Against Legal Loopholes
read the original abstract
Existing legal frameworks on AI rely on training compute thresholds as a proxy to identify potentially-dangerous AI models and trigger increased regulatory attention. In the United States, Section 4.2(a) of Executive Order 14110 instructs the Secretary of Commerce to require extensive reporting from developers of AI models above a certain training compute threshold. In the European Union, Article 51 of the AI Act establishes a presumption that AI models above a certain compute threshold have high impact capabilities and hence pose systemic risk, thus subjecting their developers to several obligations including capability evaluations, reporting, and incident monitoring. In this paper, we examine some enhancement techniques that are capable of decreasing training compute usage while preserving, or even increasing, model capabilities. Since training compute thresholds rely on training compute as a metric and trigger for increased regulatory attention, these capability-enhancing and compute-saving techniques could constitute a legal loophole to existing training compute thresholds. In particular, we concentrate on four illustrative techniques (fine-tuning, model reuse, model expansion, and above compute-optimal inference compute) with the goal of furthering the conversation about their implications on training compute thresholds as a legal mechanism and advancing policy recommendations that could address the relevant legal loopholes.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification
Proposes a feasibility taxonomy of 20 hardware-level AI compute governance mechanisms organized by monitoring, verification, and enforcement, with mappings to regulatory scenarios that highlight immaturity of treaty-v...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.