REVIEW 3 cited by
On the Limitations of Compute Thresholds as a Governance Strategy
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
read the original abstract
At face value, this essay is about understanding a fairly esoteric governance tool called compute thresholds. However, in order to grapple with whether these thresholds will achieve anything, we must first understand how they came to be. To do so, we need to engage with a decades-old debate at the heart of computer science progress, namely, is bigger always better? Does a certain inflection point of compute result in changes to the risk profile of a model? Hence, this essay may be of interest not only to policymakers and the wider public but also to computer scientists interested in understanding the role of compute in unlocking breakthroughs. This discussion is timely given the wide adoption of compute thresholds in both the White House Executive Orders on AI Safety (EO) and the EU AI Act to identify more risky systems. A key conclusion of this essay is that compute thresholds, as currently implemented, are shortsighted and likely to fail to mitigate risk. The relationship between compute and risk is highly uncertain and rapidly changing. Relying upon compute thresholds overestimates our ability to predict what abilities emerge at different scales. This essay ends with recommendations for a better way forward.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
When Life Gives You Samples: The Benefits of Scaling up Inference Compute for Multilingual LLMs
Hedged sampling, checklist-based one-pass selection (CHOPS), and cross-lingual MBR (X-MBR) improve multilingual LLM output quality when scaling from one to five samples.
-
Red Teaming AI Policy: A Taxonomy of Avoision and the EU AI Act
A taxonomy of avoision under the EU AI Act, with strategies to escape scope, exploit exemptions, and manipulate risk or operator categories.
-
From Turing to Tomorrow: The UK's Approach to AI Regulation
The UK should establish a flexible, principles-based regulator for frontier AI development, plus defensive measures against biological risks and updated legal frameworks for copyright, discrimination, and AI agents.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.