The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2308.00862 · v2 · pith:SHR2GLLO · submitted 2023-08-01 · cs.CY

Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence: Workshop Proceedings

Reviewed by Pithpith:SHR2GLLOopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY
keywords foundationcbmsmeasuresconfidence-buildingmodelmodelssecurityartificial
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Foundation models could eventually introduce several pathways for undermining state security: accidents, inadvertent escalation, unintentional conflict, the proliferation of weapons, and the interference with human diplomacy are just a few on a long list. The Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence workshop hosted by the Geopolitics Team at OpenAI and the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab at the University of California brought together a multistakeholder group to think through the tools and strategies to mitigate the potential risks introduced by foundation models to international security. Originating in the Cold War, confidence-building measures (CBMs) are actions that reduce hostility, prevent conflict escalation, and improve trust between parties. The flexibility of CBMs make them a key instrument for navigating the rapid changes in the foundation model landscape. Participants identified the following CBMs that directly apply to foundation models and which are further explained in this conference proceedings: 1. crisis hotlines 2. incident sharing 3. model, transparency, and system cards 4. content provenance and watermarks 5. collaborative red teaming and table-top exercises and 6. dataset and evaluation sharing. Because most foundation model developers are non-government entities, many CBMs will need to involve a wider stakeholder community. These measures can be implemented either by AI labs or by relevant government actors.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. What is Human in Judgment? Comparing Automation Bias and Algorithm Aversion Between the United States Military Academy and the General Public

    cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    West Point cadets display less automation bias and more calibrated trust in algorithmic advice than the general public in a target identification task.