Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Towards Publicly Accountable Frontier LLMs: Building an External Scrutiny Ecosystem under the ASPIRE Framework

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 2311.14711 v1 pith:RZXMFJD6 submitted 2023-11-15 cs.CY cs.AI

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

With the increasing integration of frontier large language models (LLMs) into society and the economy, decisions related to their training, deployment, and use have far-reaching implications. These decisions should not be left solely in the hands of frontier LLM developers. LLM users, civil society and policymakers need trustworthy sources of information to steer such decisions for the better. Involving outside actors in the evaluation of these systems - what we term 'external scrutiny' - via red-teaming, auditing, and external researcher access, offers a solution. Though there are encouraging signs of increasing external scrutiny of frontier LLMs, its success is not assured. In this paper, we survey six requirements for effective external scrutiny of frontier AI systems and organize them under the ASPIRE framework: Access, Searching attitude, Proportionality to the risks, Independence, Resources, and Expertise. We then illustrate how external scrutiny might function throughout the AI lifecycle and offer recommendations to policymakers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Exposure is not manifestation: measurement target and output resolution jointly determine which behavioural-faithfulness evaluator wins

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Small hyperbolic models (146M–3B) report 100% creative-seed preference, 90.7% compliance-gap detection, and a selective-gating skeleton–wallpaper memory pilot as a companion-AI stack.

  2. GPAI Evaluations Standards Taskforce: Towards Effective AI Governance

    cs.CY 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes an EU GPAI Evaluation Standards Taskforce to develop adaptive standards for AI evaluations, based on four desiderata: internal validity, external validity, reproducibility, and portability.

Pith tools