Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 97 references

A Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) Framework for AI policy

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read AI policy should be anchored in social outcomes and priorities rather than the technology itself.

desk verdict A coherent but incomplete policy manifesto: the SOP framework is a useful synthesis, yet its anchor—'consensus-driven social priorities'—is named, not built. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08241 v1 pith:QCZ7OQMA submitted 2024-11-12 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

Mohak Shah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG
keywords AIpolicyregulationandsocietygenerativesocialoutcomestechnology-centeredgovernance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's central claim is that current AI policy fails because it is technology-centered: it focuses on model capabilities, risks, and guardrails, while neglecting the social outcomes society actually wants. The author argues that the intended outcomes—democracy, fairness, equity, information veracity, privacy, security—should determine policy priorities, acceptable uses, and the stringency of guardrails. To this end, the paper proposes a Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) framework with four functions: an information function (a non-partisan Congressional AI Office), a responsible technology development function (a federal Data and AI Safety Agency), a legislative function, and a regulatory, enforcement, and incentivization function. A sympathetic reader would care because, if correct, it gives a coherent alternative to the fragmented and reactive patchwork of AI regulation, and a way to make rules that survive rapid technological change.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SOP framework for AI policy, defined as a society-centered alternative to technology-centered governance. Its load-bearing mechanism is the outside-in principle: policy, regulation, and guardrails are derived from a consensus-driven set of social outcomes and priorities, and the permitted stringency of control scales with the criticality of the application area. The framework carries the argument through four functional components—Information, Responsible Technology Development, Legislative, and Regulatory/Enforcement/Incentivization—each with named implementation vehicles (a Congressional AI Office, a US Data and AI Safety Agency, outcome-based legislation, and agency-level enforcement). Together, these functions convert the abstract goal of benefiting society into concrete decisions about where AI is permitted, under what conditions, and with what accountability.

What would settle it

Run a structured deliberation pilot for one contested AI application (for example, AI in hiring) using the proposed information function; if a diverse stakeholder panel cannot converge on a stable rank-ordering of social outcomes across repeated sessions, or if the information function's summaries measurably favor one political side, the load-bearing premise of consensus fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a society-centered approach is required for AI policy to be effective. Its core statement is that 'the intended outcomes should inform the policy priorities and the use of AI in various areas'—the outside-in principle. The paper argues that because AI systems like large language models have inherent properties such as hallucination, and because risks depend on application context, uniform technology-level guardrails are both over- and under-inclusive. The constructive discovery is the SOP framework itself: a four-component architecture that operationalizes this principle through continuous, objective information gathering; responsible technology development with safety, privacy, and data safeguards; outcome-based legislation such as a right to factual information rather than piecemeal deepfake laws; and distributed regulatory, enforcement, and incentivization powers across existing agencies. The paper also specifies implementation proposals: a new Congressional AI Office, a new Data and AI Safety Agency, and ways existing agencies such as the CFPB and NHTSA would extend their mandates around AI outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that a consensus-driven social prioritization of desired outcomes can be established and operationalized, and that the proposed Congressional AI Office can provide objective, non-partisan, evidence-based information to guide this consensus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Regulatory stringency would vary by application context, replacing uniform model-level guardrails with rules that tolerate hallucinations in creative tools but not in defense or safety-critical systems.
  • New federal institutions—a Congressional AI Office and a US Data and AI Safety Agency—would provide continuous, non-partisan information and technology-development oversight.
  • Existing agencies such as the CFPB, NHTSA, SEC, and FDA-like bodies would enforce AI-related outcomes within their mandates, using mechanisms like graduated release and product recall.
  • Piecemeal deepfake and misinformation bills would be superseded by legislation framed around outcomes such as a fundamental right to factual information.
  • International AI cooperation would be organized around shared social priorities and value alignment, using the same outcome-centered structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same outside-in logic implies that 'trust in AI' should be redefined as context-dependent trustworthiness relative to specific outcomes—a measurement problem the paper gestures at but does not develop.
  • The framework's key empirical risk—whether social consensus on outcomes is reachable—could be tested before institutional adoption via structured deliberation pilots on a single contested issue such as AI in hiring, with repeated sessions to check for stable convergence.
  • The argument extends naturally to other rapidly evolving technologies, such as synthetic media or autonomous systems, predicting that policies built without an outcome anchor will likewise fragment into reactive, technology-specific rules.
  • Because the paper assigns liability along the AI supply chain, a concrete corollary is that procurement and liability rules would need to codify responsibility sharing among model developers, integrators, and deployers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that current AI policy is technology-centered, fragmented, reactive, and decoupled from intended societal outcomes. It proposes a Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) framework in which policy is anchored in consensus-driven social priorities and desired outcomes, rather than in model-level or infrastructure-level technical attributes. The framework has four functions—information, responsible technology development, legislative, and regulatory/enforcement/incentivization—and is illustrated with proposed U.S. institutions (a Congressional AI Office and a US Data and AI Safety Agency) plus examples across deepfakes, mis- and disinformation, autonomous vehicles, algorithmic discrimination, and energy externalities. The paper is a normative policy proposal rather than an empirical or formal study; its central claim is that a society-centered, outcome-anchored approach would yield more coherent, forward-looking, and accountable AI governance.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper could productively reframe AI policy debates away from a narrow focus on model capabilities and toward the social functions AI serves. The paper's strengths are its clear critique of fragmented, reactive policy; its useful inventory of AI risks across security, democracy, labor, and sustainability; and its concrete examples showing that the same technical capability can be acceptable in one context and dangerous in another. The proposed four-function structure and the emphasis on information infrastructure for policy are constructive contributions. However, the paper's load-bearing concept—'consensus-driven social prioritization'—is named but not defined, and no mechanism is offered for how such consensus is reached, revised, or made actionable. Because the proposal depends on an agreed basis for priorities, the framework is not yet operational as stated. The paper also makes some sweeping empirical claims, such as the assertion that industry self-regulation is 'guaranteed to fail,' without supporting evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 intro, §1, §3.10] The framework's anchor is 'consensus-driven social outcomes' (Sec. 4 intro) and a 'consensus on the nature of outcomes' (Sec. 3.10), but the paper never defines what this consensus is, who participates in forming it, how disagreements are resolved, or how the consensus changes over time. Section 1 itself concedes that desirable versus deleterious outcomes involve 'inherent subjectivity' based on application, domain, user-group, and risk level. This is load-bearing: without an operational mechanism for preference aggregation or conflict resolution, the same evidence can support incompatible policies (for example, 'fairness' as equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome). The paper's reliance on a 'strictly non-partisan' Congressional AI Office to supply objective information does not solve this, because normative disagreements are not resolved by additional facts. The proposal therefore risks being circular: policy is to be anchored in outcomes, but the outcomes are to be supplied by a consensus that the paper admits is missing and gives no method to reach.
  2. [§2, item 3] The claim that self-regulation is 'guaranteed to fail and has never in the past worked for any technology or industry' is an unsupported categorical empirical assertion. It is not necessary to the paper's main argument, which only requires showing that self-regulation is insufficient as a complete policy approach. As written, the sentence invites easy counterexamples and weakens the credibility of the surrounding critique. The authors should either provide comparative evidence about past industry self-regulation or temper the claim to 'self-regulation has often been insufficient when decoupled from public input and accountability mechanisms.'
  3. [§4.1.1–§4.1.2] The proposed Congressional AI Office and US Data and AI Safety Agency are central to the framework, but the paper provides no governance details: how are their leaders appointed, how are they insulated from regulatory capture and partisan pressure, what enforcement powers do they have, how are their findings audited, and how do they reconcile conflicts with existing agencies such as NIST or the FTC? The assertion that the Congressional AI Office can be 'strictly non-partisan' is particularly unsupported. Without concrete institutional design, the information function cannot credibly serve as the 'unbiased basis and platform to inform policy' promised in Section 3.11.
  4. [§4.1.3] The legislative-function examples, especially the proposed 'right to factual information' and legislation to ensure 'information veracity, correctness and provenance,' are presented as self-evident desired outcomes, but they are deeply contested normative positions with direct implications for free expression and press freedom. The paper acknowledges that First Amendment rights must be protected but does not explain how outcome-based regulation of information veracity avoids authorizing the kind of speech restrictions it elsewhere criticizes as piecemeal and reactive. This is not an incidental example; it shows that the 'outcome space' itself requires value choices that the framework does not yet have a method to make.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1.4] The word 'inventivization' appears in the heading and should be 'incentivization'.
  2. [§4.1.4] The abbreviation 'NHSTA' appears where the paper elsewhere uses 'NHTSA'; please standardize.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads 'AI Risks increase with increasing range of AI’s influence,' but the figure itself would benefit from explicit axis labels and a legend indicating what the colored zones represent.
  4. [§2, item 1] The statement that AI subject-matter experts 'lack the rest of the contextual understanding and potentially the needed objectivity' is an overgeneralization; it would be more accurate to say that technical expertise alone is insufficient for policy decisions.
  5. [§5] The list of advantages of the SOP framework would be stronger if each claimed advantage were tied to a concrete mechanism or example of how the framework would deliver it, rather than restating the desired outcome.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SOP framework is a normative policy proposal with no fitted parameters, derived predictions, or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper is a normative policy proposal rather than a derivation. It fits no parameters to data, makes no quantitative predictions, and invokes no uniqueness theorems or prior results by the same author as load-bearing premises. The central claim—that intended social outcomes should inform policy priorities rather than technology-first guardrails—is supported by external examples (NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, piecemeal deepfake legislation), cited empirical studies, and case-based arguments, not by a chain that reduces to its own inputs. The closest self-referential element is that the framework proposes creating the Congressional AI Office and the US Data and AI Safety Agency to supply the very information base the framework requires (Secs. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2), and the paper concedes that judgments about desirable versus deleterious outcomes involve 'inherent subjectivity' (Sec. 1). A critic could call the consensus anchor underspecified or institutionally fragile, but that is a feasibility and legitimacy gap, not circularity: the paper does not define 'consensus-driven social outcomes' in terms of the AI policy apparatus it recommends, nor does it present the proposed agencies' outputs as already-existing evidence that justifies the framework. No equations are reused under new names, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation. The later recommendation that an information office would 'keep us honest about the potential, risk, and policy effectiveness around AI' is a proposed remedy for a stated gap, not a circular justification. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, but it relies on several unproven premises about social consensus, the ineffectiveness of current policy, and the failure of self-regulation. It also proposes two new federal agencies as invented institutions without independent evidence of their feasibility or effectiveness.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Society has a set of core democratic values and priorities that can be agreed upon and should guide policy.
    The entire SOP framework rests on the existence of a consensus value system, asserted in Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 4 without a mechanism for achieving it.
  • domain assumption The current technology-centered approach to AI policy is fragmented, reactive, and ineffective.
    This empirical claim is asserted in the abstract and Sec. 2 with anecdotal examples but no systematic evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-regulation by industry has never worked and is 'guaranteed to fail'.
    Sec. 2, argument 3 makes this sweeping generalization without supporting evidence or citations.
  • domain assumption Pure scaling of LLMs will not lead to AGI.
    Sec. 3.2 asserts this without proof or citation, and it is used to justify the need for social outcome anchoring.
invented entities (2)
  • Congressional AI Office
    purpose: Independent non-partisan agency to inform AI policy with objective evidence (Sec. 4.1.1).
    No evidence outside the paper that such an office would function as described; it is a normative proposal.
  • US Data and AI Safety Agency
    purpose: Federal agency with regulatory authority over AI technology development (Sec. 4.1.2).
    Proposed new institution with no external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) Framework for AI policy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCZ7OQMA

@misc{pith2026241108241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) Framework for AI policy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCZ7OQMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08241}
}
read the original abstract

Rapid developments in AI and its adoption across various domains have necessitated a need to build robust guardrails and risk containment plans while ensuring equitable benefits for the betterment of society. The current technology-centered approach has resulted in a fragmented, reactive, and ineffective policy apparatus. This paper highlights the immediate and urgent need to pivot to a society-centered approach to develop comprehensive, coherent, forward-looking AI policy. To this end, we present a Social Outcomes and Priorities centered (SOP) framework for AI policy along with proposals on implementation of its various components. While the SOP framework is presented from a US-centric view, the takeaways are general and applicable globally.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models

    Xu Z, Jain S, Kankanhalli M. Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With This

    Banerjee S, Agarwal A, Singla S. LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With This. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI

    Bick A, Blandin A, Deming DJ. The Rapid Adoption of Generative AI. Working Paper 32966, National Bureau of Economic Research; : 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Existential and Systemic AI Risks

    Lumenova Blog . Existential and Systemic AI Risks. Lumenova Blog; 2024. https://www.lumenova.ai/blog/ existential-systemic-ai-risks-brief-introduction/

    2024

  5. [5]

    Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress.Science

    Bengio Y , Hinton G, Yao A, et al. Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress.Science. 2024;384(6698):842-845. doi: 10.1126/science.adn0117

    doi:10.1126/science.adn0117 2024

  6. [6]

    Man Charged With $10 Million Streaming Music Scam Using AI-Generated Songs

    Katz L. Man Charged With $10 Million Streaming Music Scam Using AI-Generated Songs. Forbes; 2024. accessed Sep 9, 2024 https: //www.forbes.com/sites/lesliekatz/2024/09/08/man-charged-with-10-million-streaming-scam-using-ai-generated-songs/

    2024

  7. [7]

    A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions

    Huang L, Yu W, Ma W, et al. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. arXiv; 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    The Online Degradation of Women and Girls That We Meet With a Shrug

    Kristof N. The Online Degradation of Women and Girls That We Meet With a Shrug. The New York Times Opinions; 2024. accessed March 23, 2024 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/23/opinion/deepfake-sex-videos.html

    2024

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Malicious AI models on Hugging Face backdoor users’ machines

    Toulas B. Malicious AI models on Hugging Face backdoor users’ machines. BleepingComputer; 2024. ac- cessed Feb 28, 2024 https://www-bleepingcomputer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ malicious-ai-models-on-hugging-face-backdoor-users-machines/amp/

    2024

  2. [10]

    A New Identity and Financial Network

    Worldcoin . A New Identity and Financial Network. tech. rep., World Project; : 2023. https://whitepaper.world.org/ #a-new-identity-and-financial-network

    2023

  3. [11]

    Australia launches world-first crackdown on ‘deepfake’ porn

    Swan D. Australia launches world-first crackdown on ‘deepfake’ porn. The Sydney Morning Herald; 2023. accessed Nov 20, 2023 https: //www.smh.com.au/technology/australia-launches-world-first-crackdown-on-deepfake-porn-20231119-p5el1v.html

    2023

  4. [12]

    NYC’s AI Chatbot Tells Businesses to Break the Law

    Lecher C. NYC’s AI Chatbot Tells Businesses to Break the Law. The Markup; 2024. accessed March 29, 2024 https://themarkup.org/news/2024/ 03/29/nycs-ai-chatbot-tells-businesses-to-break-the-law

    2024

  5. [13]

    Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models

    Carlini N, Tramèr F, Wallace E, et al. Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models. CoRR. 2020;abs/2012.07805

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models

    Carlini N, Ippolito D, Jagielski M, Lee K, Tramèr F, Zhang C. Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models. arXiv; 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Here Comes The AI Worm: Unleashing Zero-click Worms that Target GenAI-Powered Applications

    Cohen S, Bitton R, Nassi B. Here Comes The AI Worm: Unleashing Zero-click Worms that Target GenAI-Powered Applications. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Imprompter: Tricking LLM Agents into Improper Tool Use

    Fu X, Li S, Wang Z, et al. Imprompter: Tricking LLM Agents into Improper Tool Use. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Artificial Intelligence: The New Eyes Of Surveillance

    Pfau M. Artificial Intelligence: The New Eyes Of Surveillance. Forbes Technology Council; 2024. accessed Feb 02, 2024 https://www.forbes.com/ sites/forbestechcouncil/2024/02/02/artificial-intelligence-the-new-eyes-of-surveillance/

    2024

  10. [18]

    The (ongoing) fight against workplace AI surveillance

    Coleman T. The (ongoing) fight against workplace AI surveillance. THE WEEK US (Under the Radar); 2024. accessed Jan 15, 2024 https: //theweek.com/tech/workplace-ai-surveillance

    2024

  11. [19]

    Hacker plants false memories in ChatGPT to steal user data in perpetuity - Emails, documents, and other un- trusted content can plant malicious memories

    Goodin D. Hacker plants false memories in ChatGPT to steal user data in perpetuity - Emails, documents, and other un- trusted content can plant malicious memories.. Arstechnica, access on Sep 24, 2024; 2024. https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/09/ false-memories-planted-in-c...

    2024

  12. [20]

    ByteDance is secretly using OpenAI’s tech to build a competitor

    Heath A. ByteDance is secretly using OpenAI’s tech to build a competitor. The Verge; 2023. accessed Dec 15, 2023. https://www.theverge.com/ 2023/12/15/24003151/bytedance-china-openai-microsoft-competitor-llm

    2023

  13. [21]

    OpenAI bans TikTok company Bytedance from ChatGPT due to possible data theft

    Bastian M. OpenAI bans TikTok company Bytedance from ChatGPT due to possible data theft. The Decoder; 2023. accessed Dec 16, 2023. https://the-decoder.com/openai-bans-tiktok-company-bytedance-from-chatgpt-due-to-possible-data-theft/

    2023

  14. [22]

    On Algorithmic Wage Discrimination

    Dubal V . On Algorithmic Wage Discrimination. tech. rep., UC San Francisco; : 2023. published Jan 19, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 4331080

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Project Analyzing Human Language Usage Shuts Down Because ‘Generative AI Has Polluted the Data’

    Koebler J. Project Analyzing Human Language Usage Shuts Down Because ‘Generative AI Has Polluted the Data’. 404 Media; 2024. accessed Sep 19, 2024 https://www.404media.co/project-analyzing-human-language-usage-shuts-down-because-generative-ai-has-polluted-the-data/

    2024

  16. [24]

    The Simple Macroeconomics of AI

    Acemoglu D. The Simple Macroeconomics of AI. Working Paper 32487, National Bureau of Economic Research; : 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    What’s in a Name? Auditing Large Language Models for Race and Gender Bias

    Haim A, Salinas A, Nyarko J. What’s in a Name? Auditing Large Language Models for Race and Gender Bias. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    The legal issues presented by generative AI

    Walsh D. The legal issues presented by generative AI. MIT Sloan publication; 2023. accessed Aug 28, 2023 https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ ideas-made-to-matter/legal-issues-presented-generative-ai

    2023

  19. [27]

    Open-Sourcing Highly Capable Foundation Models: An evaluation of risks, benefits, and alternative methods for pursuing open-source objectives

    Seger E, Dreksler N, Moulange R, et al. Open-Sourcing Highly Capable Foundation Models: An evaluation of risks, benefits, and alternative methods for pursuing open-source objectives. arXiv; 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Harris, D. E. . Open-Source AI Is Uniquely Dangerous But the regulations that could rein it in would benefit all of AI. IEEE Spectrum

  21. [29]

    Open source, open risks: The growing dangers of unregulated generative AI

    Owen-Jackson, C. . Open source, open risks: The growing dangers of unregulated generative AI. Security Intelligence; 2024. https: //securityintelligence.com/articles/unregulated-generative-ai-dangers-open-source/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Model Weights

    Telecommunications UN, Administration I. Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Model Weights. tech. rep., NTIA; : 2024. https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ntia-ai-open-model-report.pdf

    2024

  23. [31]

    Be careful with ‘open source’ AI

    Doerrfeld, B. . Be careful with ‘open source’ AI. LeadDev; 2024. https://leaddev.com/technical-direction/be-careful-open-source-ai

    2024

  24. [32]

    Jailbreaking LLM-Controlled Robots

    Robey A, Ravichandran Z, Kumar V , Hassani H, Pappas GJ. Jailbreaking LLM-Controlled Robots. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Social Media Algorithm Auditing Project

    STRIPED Initiative at Harvard University . Social Media Algorithm Auditing Project. STRIPED Initiative at Harvard University’s School of Public Health; 2024. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/striped/social-media-algorithm-auditing/

    2024

  26. [34]

    School Leaders Warn AI Is A ‘Real And Present’ Danger To Education

    Morrison, N . School Leaders Warn AI Is A ‘Real And Present’ Danger To Education. Fortune; 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/ 2023/05/20/school-leaders-warn-ai-is-a-real-and-present-danger-to-education/

    2023

  27. [35]

    Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms.Current Opinion in Psychology

    Robertson CE, del Rosario KS, Van Bavel JJ. Inside the funhouse mirror factory: How social media distorts perceptions of norms.Current Opinion in Psychology. 2024;60:101918. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101918

    2024

  28. [36]

    AI hustlers stole women’s faces to put in ads

    Tiku N, Verma P. AI hustlers stole women’s faces to put in ads. The law can’t help them. THE Washington Post); 2024. accessed March 28, 2024 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/28/ai-women-clone-ads/

    2024

  29. [37]

    Schatz, B and Sen

    Sen. Schatz, B and Sen. Thune J (original sponsors) . Bill: S.797 Platform Accountability and Consumer Tranparency ACt or the PACT Act. US Senate Bill S.797 - Introducted 3/17/2021; 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/797/text. A Social Outcomes and ...

    2021

  30. [38]

    California Privacy Rights Act (extends and amends California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and includes Senate Bill 362 (Delete Act)

    California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) / California Administration . California Privacy Rights Act (extends and amends California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, and includes Senate Bill 362 (Delete Act). CCPA; 2024. published to ccpa.ca.gov August 2024 https://cppa.ca.gov/...

    2018

  31. [39]

    AB 2655: Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024

    Berman M, G P, S B, S C. AB 2655: Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024. California Assembly Bill b 2655 - Chapter 261, Statutes of 2024; 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2655

    2024

  32. [40]

    H.R.5586 - DEEPFAKES Accountability Act

    Clarke YD. H.R.5586 - DEEPFAKES Accountability Act. Introduced in the US House of Representatives on Sep 20, 2023; 2023. https: //www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/5586/text

    2023

  33. [41]

    Regulating AI is a mistake

    Sharma, N. . Regulating AI is a mistake. Opinion - The Michigan Daily; 2023. https://www.michigandaily.com/opinion/regulating-ai-is-a-mistake/

    2023

  34. [42]

    Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence

    The US White House . Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The White House Executive Order; 2023. October 30, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/ executive-order-on-the-s...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Schumer, C (Sponsor)

    Sen. Schumer, C (Sponsor) . Bill: S.3832 Endless Frontiers Act. US Senate Bill S.3832 - Introducted 5/21/2020; 2020. https://www.congress.gov/ bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3832/text

    2020

  36. [44]

    McCaul, M

    Rep. McCaul, M. T. (Sponsor) . Bill: H.R.7178 CHIPS for America Act. US House Bill H.R.7178 - Introducted 6/11/2020; 2020. https: //www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7178/text

    2020

  37. [45]

    and Potkin, F

    Baptista, E. and Potkin, F. and Freifeld, K. . Exclusive: Chinese entities turn to Amazon cloud and its rivals to access high-end US chips, AI. Reuters; 2024. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinese-entities-turn-amazon-cloud-its-rivals-access-high-end-us-chips-ai-2024-08-23/

    2024

  38. [46]

    Science and the nation-state: What China’s experience reveals about the role of policy in science

    Wagner CS. Science and the nation-state: What China’s experience reveals about the role of policy in science. Science and Public Policy. 2024:scae034. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scae034

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    List of AI Bills before Congress

    Chat GPT is eating the world Blog . List of AI Bills before Congress. Chatgptiseatingtheworld.com; 2024. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/ 2024/04/18/list-of-ai-bills-before-congress/

    2024

  40. [48]

    Deepfakes: Federal and state regulation aims to curb a growing threat

    Graham MM. Deepfakes: Federal and state regulation aims to curb a growing threat. Thomson Reuters; 2024. accessed June 26, 2024 https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/government/deepfakes-federal-state-regulation/

    2024

  41. [49]

    Humana used algorithm in ‘fraudulent scheme’ to deny care to Medicare Advantage patients, lawsuit alleges

    Ross C, Herman B. Humana used algorithm in ‘fraudulent scheme’ to deny care to Medicare Advantage patients, lawsuit alleges. STAT Report

  42. [50]

    Uber Accused of Charging People More If Their Phone Battery Is Low

    Staff V . Uber Accused of Charging People More If Their Phone Battery Is Low. VICE; 2023. accessed April 11, 2023 https://www.vice.com/en/ 2023/04/11/uber-surge-pricing-phone-battery/

    2023

  43. [51]

    The Artifical Intelligence Resource Management Framework (AI RMF)

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . The Artifical Intelligence Resource Management Framework (AI RMF). NIST Publication NIST AI 100-1; 2023. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    AI RMF Playbook

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . AI RMF Playbook. NIST Publication; 2023. https://airc.nist.gov/AI_RMF_Knowledge_ Base

    2023

  45. [53]

    Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models

    Nasr M, Carlini N, Hayase J, et al. Scalable Extraction of Training Data from (Production) Language Models. arXiv; 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    What Does it Mean for a Language Model to Preserve Privacy?

    Brown H, Lee K, Mireshghallah F, Shokri R, Tramèr F. What Does it Mean for a Language Model to Preserve Privacy?. arXiv; 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)

    Joint Development Foundation . Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA). C2PA Project; 2024. https://c2pa.org/

    2024

  48. [56]

    Securing AI Model Weights - Preventing Theft and Misuse of Frontier Models

    Nevo S, Lahav D, Karpur A, Bar-On Y , Bradley HA, J A. Securing AI Model Weights - Preventing Theft and Misuse of Frontier Models. tech. rep., RAND Organization; : 2024. accessed May 30, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2849-1.html

    2024

  49. [57]

    Introducing LLM360: Fully Transparent Open-Source LLMs

    LLM 360 team . Introducing LLM360: Fully Transparent Open-Source LLMs. LLM 360 team release; 2023. https://www.llm360.ai/about.html# seven

    2023

  50. [58]

    Open Language Model: OLMo

    AI2 team . Open Language Model: OLMo. Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence Release; 2024. https://allenai.org/olmo

    2024

  51. [59]

    Introducing Meta Llama 3: The most capable openly available LLM to date

    Meta AI team . Introducing Meta Llama 3: The most capable openly available LLM to date. Meta AI release; 2024. https://ai.meta.com/blog/ meta-llama-3/

    2024

  52. [60]

    Our Kids Are Living in a Different Digital World

    Dreyfuss E. Our Kids Are Living in a Different Digital World. The New York Times Opinions; 2024. accessed Jan 12,

    2024

  53. [61]

    Combating abusive AI-generated content: a comprehensive approach

    Smith B. Combating abusive AI-generated content: a comprehensive approach. Microsoft Blog; 2024. accessed Feb 13, 2024. https://blogs. microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2024/02/13/generative-ai-content-abuse-online-safety/

    2024

  54. [62]

    Finance worker pays out $25 million after video call with deepfake ’chief financial officer’

    Chen H, Magramo K. Finance worker pays out $25 million after video call with deepfake ’chief financial officer’. CNN; 2024. accessed Feb 04,

    2024

  55. [63]

    pFu0UBdWoxNU&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/opinion/children-nicotine-zyn-social-media.html?unlocked_article_code=1.VU0.1MEQ. pFu0UBdWoxNU&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

    2024

  56. [64]

    ChatGPT is bullshit

    Hicks MT, Humphries J, Slater J. ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics Inf Technol. 2024;26 (38)

    2024

  57. [65]

    War, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Conflict

    Humble K. War, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Conflict. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Walsh School of Foreign Services, Georgetown University; 2024. accessed July, 12, 2024. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/07/12/ war-artificial-intelligence-and-the-...

    2024

  58. [66]

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-hong-kong-intl-hnk/index.html

    2024

  59. [67]

    The linguistics search engine that overturned the federal mask mandate

    Wetsman N. The linguistics search engine that overturned the federal mask mandate. The Verge; 2022. accessed June 07, 2022 https://www. theverge.com/2022/6/7/23153218/legal-corpus-linguistics-mask-mandate-judges

    2022

  60. [68]

    Uber Boss Makes Shocking Admission Over ‘Algorithmic Wage Discrimination’

    Wray B. Uber Boss Makes Shocking Admission Over ‘Algorithmic Wage Discrimination’. Novara Media; 2024. accessed Feb 13, 2024 https://novaramedia.com/2024/02/13/uber-boss-makes-shocking-admission-over-algorithmic-wage-discrimination/

    2024

  61. [69]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks

    Lewis P, Perez E, Piktus A, et al. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. arXiv; 2021

    2021

  62. [70]

    Gaza Conflict 2021 Assessment: Observations and Lessons

    JINSA’s GemunderCenterGaza Assessment Policy Project . Gaza Conflict 2021 Assessment: Observations and Lessons. JINSA Report; 2021. accessed Oct. 28, 2021. https://jinsa.org/jinsa_report/gaza-conflict-2021-assessment-observations-and-lessons/

    2021

  63. [71]

    Israel Deploys Expansive Facial Recognition Program in Gaza

    Frenkel S. Israel Deploys Expansive Facial Recognition Program in Gaza. The New York Times; 2024. accessed March 28, 2024 https: //www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/technology/israel-facial-recognition-gaza.html

    2024

  64. [72]

    Master List of lawsuits v

    Chat GPT is eating the world Blog . Master List of lawsuits v. AI, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta, Mid- journey & other AI cos.. Chatgptiseatingtheworld.com; 2024. https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2024/08/27/ 26 Shah master-list-of-lawsuits-v-ai-chatgpt-openai-microsoft-m...

    2024

  65. [73]

    OpenAI strikes Reddit deal to train its AI on your posts

    David, E . OpenAI strikes Reddit deal to train its AI on your posts. The Verge; 2024. https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/16/24158529/ reddit-openai-chatgpt-api-access-advertising

    2024

  66. [74]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Wei J, Wang X, Schuurmans D, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In: NIPS ’22. Curran Associates Inc. 2024; Red Hook, NY , USA

    2024

  67. [75]

    On-Policy Fine-grained Knowledge Feedback for Hallucination Mitigation

    Wen X, Lu X, Guan X, et al. On-Policy Fine-grained Knowledge Feedback for Hallucination Mitigation. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability.Technology in Society.2021;67:101741

    Galaz V , Centeno MA, Callahan PW, et al. Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability.Technology in Society.2021;67:101741. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101741

    2021

  69. [77]

    How AI can undermine financial stability

    Danielsson J, Uthemann A. How AI can undermine financial stability. VOXEU column, accessed on Jan 22, 2024; 2024. https://cepr.org/voxeu/ columns/how-ai-can-undermine-financial-stability

    2024

  70. [78]

    How much water does AI consume? The public deserves to know

    Ren S. How much water does AI consume? The public deserves to know. OECD AI Policy Observatory; 2023. accessed Nov 30, 2023 https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/how-much-water-does-ai-consume

    2023

  71. [79]

    OpenAI asked US to approve energy-guzzling 5GW data centers, report says

    Belanger A. OpenAI asked US to approve energy-guzzling 5GW data centers, report says. Arstechnica, access on Sep 25, 2024; 2024. https: //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/openai-asked-us-to-approve-energy-guzzling-5gw-data-centers-report-says/

    2024

  72. [80]

    Responsible media technology and AI: challenges and research directions

    Trattner C, Jannach D, Motta E, et al. Responsible media technology and AI: challenges and research directions. AI Ethics. 2022;2:585-594

    2022

  73. [81]

    Navigating the Risks of Artificial Intelligence on the Digital News Landscape

    Chin, C . Navigating the Risks of Artificial Intelligence on the Digital News Landscape. Center for Strategic & International Stud- ies; 2023. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-08/230831_Chin_RisksofAI_DigitalNews.pdf?VersionId=5S3_ _8DesOYdsnf5OL4oh2...

    2023

  74. [82]

    Governing General Purpose AI — A Comprehensive Map of Unreliability, Misuse and Systemic Risks

    Maham P, Küspert S. Governing General Purpose AI — A Comprehensive Map of Unreliability, Misuse and Systemic Risks. policy brief, Interface EU; : 2023

    2023

  75. [83]

    Considering the opportunities, dangers and applications of AI – Professors Copur-Gencturk, Maddox and Hyde sound off on how AI will reshape education

    Reyes, A . Considering the opportunities, dangers and applications of AI – Professors Copur-Gencturk, Maddox and Hyde sound off on how AI will reshape education.. USC Rossier School of Education; 2023. https://rossier.usc.edu/news-insights/news/ considering-opportunities-dange...

    2023

  76. [84]

    Section 230: An Overview

    Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report . Section 230: An Overview. tech. rep., CRS; : 2024. published Jan 4, 2024. https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R46751#:~:text=Section%20230%20of%20the%20Communications,users%20of%20interactive%20computer%20services

    2024

  77. [85]

    Artificial intelligence liability: the rules are changing

    Long R. Artificial intelligence liability: the rules are changing. Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society (CIS) Blog; 2023. accessed March 17, 2023 https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2023/03/artificial-intelligence-liability-rules-are-changing-1/

    2023

  78. [86]

    SciAgents: Automating scientific discovery through multi-agent intelligent graph reasoning

    Ghafarollahi A, Buehler MJ. SciAgents: Automating scientific discovery through multi-agent intelligent graph reasoning. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools

    Magesh V , Surani F, Dahl M, Suzgun M, Manning CD, Ho DE. Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools. arXiv; 2024

    2024

  80. [88]

    The Artifical Intelligence ACt

    European Union Regulation . The Artifical Intelligence ACt. Official Journal (OJ) of the EU; 2024. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/the-act/

    2024

  81. [89]

    Will AI’s huge energy demands spur a nuclear renaissance?

    Castelvecchi D. Will AI’s huge energy demands spur a nuclear renaissance?. Nature article; 2024. accessed Oct. 24, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/ d41586-024-03490-3

    2024

  82. [90]

    Legal loopholes don’t help victims of sexualised deepfakes abuse

    Flynn A. Legal loopholes don’t help victims of sexualised deepfakes abuse. Monash University Lens - Politics and Society; 2024. accessed April 18, 2024 https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2024/04/18/1386624/legal-loopholes-dont-help-victims-of-sexualised-deepfakes-abuse

    2024

  83. [91]

    A new expert group at the OECD for policy synergies in AI, data, and privacy

    Girot C, Wong D, Neppel C, Perset K, Eidelman R. A new expert group at the OECD for policy synergies in AI, data, and privacy. OECD.AI Policy Observatory; 2024. accessed Feb 21, 2024 https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/expert-group-data-privacy

    2024

  84. [92]

    Constitutional AI (Implementation tracker)

    Anthropic AI . Constitutional AI (Implementation tracker). Anthropic AI; 2023. https://www.constitutional.ai/

    2023

  85. [93]

    Exclusive: Waymo engineering exec discusses self-driving AI models that will power the cars into new cities

    Goldman, S. . Exclusive: Waymo engineering exec discusses self-driving AI models that will power the cars into new cities. Fortune; 2024. https://fortune.com/2024/10/18/waymo-self-driving-car-ai-foundation-models-expansion-new-cities/. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Mohak Shah is an AI and ...

    2024

  86. [94]

    Sunset: wordfreq open source project

    Speer R. Sunset: wordfreq open source project. GitHub; 2024. accessed Sep 19, 2024 https://github.com/rspeer/wordfreq/blob/master/SUNSET.md

    2024

  87. [95]

    ISOP/IEC 42001:2023 Standard

    the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) . ISOP/IEC 42001:2023 Standard. tech. rep., ISO/IEC; : 2023. published Dec, 2023. https://www.iso.org/standard/81230.html

    2023

  88. [2023]

    https://www.statnews.com/2023/12/12/humana-algorithm-medicare-advantage-patients-lawsuit/

    accessed Dec 12, 2023. https://www.statnews.com/2023/12/12/humana-algorithm-medicare-advantage-patients-lawsuit/

    2023

  89. [2024]

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-ai-2666932122#:~:text=The%20threat%20posed%20by%20unsecured,Congress%20to%20address% 20these%20threats

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.