Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 171 references

AI Governance through Markets

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that standardised AI disclosures and market mechanisms can create powerful incentives for safe and responsible AI development.

desk verdict A competent synthesis of market-based AI governance ideas that falls short of demonstrating its central claim that standardised disclosures will price AI risk. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.17755 v2 pith:NFUGS7F7 submitted 2025-01-29 econ.GN cs.AIq-fin.EC

Philip Moreira Tomei , Rupal Jain , Matija Franklin This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNcs.AIq-fin.EC
keywords AIgovernancemarketmechanismsstandardiseddisclosureinformationasymmetryriskinsuranceauditingduediligence
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

This paper argues that AI governance should include market-based mechanisms alongside regulation, because markets can price and mitigate AI risk through financial incentives. It identifies four mechanisms—insurance, third-party auditing, procurement standards, and investor due diligence—and contends that standardised AI disclosure is the foundation that makes them effective. The paper maintains that standardised disclosures and market mechanisms can create powerful incentives for safe and responsible AI development, and that these forces can address capital allocation inefficiencies without replacing regulation. A sympathetic reader would take away that the path to safer AI may run through the insurance market, the audit firm, and the procurement department as much as through the legislature.

What carries the argument

The pivotal device is standardised information about AI risk: the paper proposes a set of disclosure targets along the large-model production pipeline—data provenance, energy use, compute allocation, intended model behaviour, interpretability, open-source practices, and adversarial testing—so that AI risk can be measured and priced by market actors. These targets are organised around a risk-adjusted value formula, $RAV = E(X) - \lambda \sigma(X)$, which casts AI investment decisions as a tradeoff between expected return and variability, and a model of information asymmetry, $\lambda(I) = \lambda_0 e^{s_\lambda I}$, which shows how disclosure gaps distort risk aversion and, in turn, capital allocation. The four governance mechanisms (insurance, auditing, procurement, due diligence) are the channels that translate disclosed information into changed behaviour.

What would settle it

A natural experiment would be the introduction of a binding AI disclosure regime—for example, mandatory reporting of compute spend, red-team results, incident rates, and interpretability metrics—followed over several years. If insurance premiums, valuation multiples, procurement outcomes, and due-diligence decisions do not shift materially with the disclosed risk metrics, the central claim is falsified. A weaker falsifier would be evidence that firms respond with superficial 'safety-washing' or that market actors systematically ignore the disclosures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that standardised AI disclosures and market mechanisms can create powerful incentives for safe and responsible AI development, affirming the relationship between AI risk and financial risk while addressing capital allocation inefficiencies. It argues that insurance, auditing, procurement, and due diligence are emerging vectors of market governance, each of which aligns financial incentives with desired outcomes: insurance distributes risk, auditing provides assurance and information discovery, procurement protocolises standards, and due diligence channels capital allocation. The authors are explicit that market forces alone cannot adequately protect societal interests, so market governance should complement—not substitute for—regulation. If correct, capital would systematically flow toward AI developers with lower disclosed risk, making safety a competitive advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that once standardised information about AI risk is made available, market actors—insurers, auditors, procurers, and investors—will actually use it to price risk accurately and change their decisions, rather than ignoring it or misreading it. The supporting case studies come from real estate, video conferencing, aerospace, and oil, not from AI markets, so the transferability of these dynamics to AI is assumed rather than demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standardised AI disclosure would let insurers price AI risk, turning underwriting into a de facto safety enforcement mechanism.
  • Auditing and certification would provide independent verification, making 'safety-washing' costly and rewarding genuine risk reduction.
  • Procurement standards, like those used by the U.S. military, would push AI suppliers to meet predefined risk benchmarks to win contracts.
  • Investor due diligence would shift capital allocation away from high-risk AI ventures, potentially mobilising hundreds of billions of dollars toward safety research.
  • These mechanisms would complement, not replace, regulation, reducing the need for heavy-handed mandates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The case studies are drawn from non-AI sectors (real estate, Zoom, Apollo, BP); an empirical test would be to observe whether AI firms respond to insurance pricing and audit findings with genuine risk reduction or with disclosure gaming.
  • The $\lambda(I)$ model makes the sign of $s_\lambda$ risk-specific, so the paper's own formalism implies that disclosure standards may need to be calibrated per risk type—some risks need more transparency to curb overconfidence, others to curb overcaution—which the paper does not specify.
  • The proposal risks a Goodhart dynamic: once standardised metrics are used for capital allocation, firms may optimise the metric rather than the underlying risk; auditing is the only counterweight mentioned, and its enforcement strength is left unspecified.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. This paper argues that market-based mechanisms—insurance, auditing, procurement, and due diligence—should be treated as a key complement to regulation in governing AI, on the ground that they align financial incentives with safety. It introduces a risk-adjusted value (RAV) formula, proposes an exponential relationship between information asymmetry and risk aversion in Section 6.1, and recommends seven standardized disclosure targets in Table 1. The argument is illustrated with four non-AI case studies (commercial real estate, Zoom, the Apollo program, and BP) and concludes with a policy agenda and an appendix of possible disclosure standards. The paper is explicitly programmatic rather than an empirical demonstration.

Significance. If the causal chain from standardized disclosure to accurate risk pricing to changed capital allocation were established, the paper would make a useful contribution to AI governance by showing how private actors can create incentives without waiting for comprehensive regulation. The paper usefully catalogs four emerging governance vectors and proposes concrete, testable disclosure categories, and it honestly acknowledges several obstacles—such as black-box opacity and missing actuarial data. However, the manuscript does not provide evidence that its disclosure targets are decision-relevant risk metrics, and the case studies are analogical rather than direct. The significance is therefore conditional on future actuarial, statistical, and empirical work, which the paper itself calls for.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 1, and Appendix A] The central claim that standardized AI disclosures create powerful incentives requires that the disclosed items are decision-relevant risk metrics. The paper never provides an actuarial, statistical, or formal model linking data provenance, PUE, quarterly compute spend, intended model behaviour, interpretability techniques, open-source practices, or adversarial testing details to loss probabilities or severities that insurers and investors could price. Section 2 itself concedes that black-box opacity, cascading failures, legal ambiguity, and missing actuarial data 'complicate risk assessment' and that 'regulatory, legal and scientific innovations are still necessary for a robust AI risk market to develop.' Without this link, the proposed disclosures may increase transparency without changing capital allocation, leaving the central mechanism unsecured.
  2. [Section 6] The sentences claiming that standardization 'reduces transaction costs, drives competition on value and reduces externalities' and that systematic disclosure 'enhances market participants’ decision-making capabilities' are each followed by an unfilled citation placeholder '[? ]'. These are load-bearing empirical claims about the benefits of standardization, and the missing references should either be supplied or the claims should be reformulated as explicitly unsupported hypotheses.
  3. [Section 6.1] The model λ(I) = λ0·e^{sλ·I} is introduced without derivation, and the free parameters λ0 and sλ are not estimated or calibrated. The sign of sλ is permitted to be either positive or negative, and the two regimes are then used to argue that disclosure corrects both over- and under-investment. Because the exponential functional form and parameter values are unspecified, the illustration does not provide empirical evidence that disclosure mitigates information asymmetry; it only re-describes the assumption.
  4. [Sections 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1] The four case studies (commercial real estate, Zoom, Apollo, and BP) are analogies from other domains, and none demonstrates the proposed mechanism for AI. Each shows markets responding to realized losses, reputation damage, or audit pressure after the fact; none shows that pre-incident standardized AI disclosures would have changed capital allocation. The BP example, for instance, attributes governance improvements to investor pressure after the spill, not to a disclosure framework of the kind proposed in Table 1. These cases are illustrative rather than evidential.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 4 heading] The heading 'Protocolisaton' appears to be a typo for 'Protocolisation'.
  2. [Section 6] The phrase 'between AI providers and rs' is missing a word ('users' or similar) and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2] In 'he financial toll of cyberattacks swells by 15% annually', the initial 'he' should be 'The'.
  4. [Section 5.1] 'Beythe catastrophic and environmental implications' should read 'Beyond the catastrophic and environmental implications'.
  5. [Section 8.2] The phrase 'could could mobilise approximately $330 billion' repeats 'could'.
  6. [Section 4] 'The U.S. The Department of Defense’s Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification' contains a duplicated article; it should be 'The U.S. Department of Defense’s'.
  7. [Figure 2 caption] The caption 'Figure 1. D Scatter Plot' appears garbled; it should likely be '3D Scatter Plot', and the preceding caption duplication ('Fig. 2. Figure 1.') should be removed.
  8. [References] Several references are formatted inconsistently and some entries contain stray brackets or incomplete metadata; a consistent citation style would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; RAV and λ(I) are explicit definitions or illustrative models, not fitted to the conclusion, and the argument rests on external case studies.

full rationale

The paper is a policy argument rather than a derivation, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction. The RAV formula in Section 1.2 is an explicit definition of a mean-variance risk-adjusted value, citing Artzner et al.; it is not fitted to any outcome and is used conceptually. Section 6.1's λ(I) = λ0·e^(sλ·I) is presented as an illustrative model with free parameters, not estimated from or tested against the paper's conclusions, so it is not a fitted-input-called-prediction. Table 1's standardization targets are forward-looking proposals, and the paper explicitly says 'This is not an exhaustive inventory.' The four case studies (CRE, Zoom, Apollo, BP) are external, non-AI precedents; whether they transfer to AI is an empirical question, not a circular one. The author self-citations are incidental: [58] and [60] are contextual/definitional, and [160] supports a general insurance-incentive claim that is not the load-bearing element. The paper's own limitations are flagged but are evidentiary, not circular: Section 6 contains two unfilled citations ('[? ]') for the claim that standardization reduces externalities, and Section 2 concedes that 'regulatory, legal and scientific innovations are still necessary for a robust AI risk market to develop.' These are gaps in demonstrating that process disclosures map to loss distributions, but they do not equate a result to its inputs. Thus no significant circularity.

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

The paper's central claim rests on two illustrative formulas (RAV and lambda(I)) and on the assumption that market actors will respond to standardized risk information. The formulas introduce free parameters that are not estimated. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda_0 (baseline risk aversion) = none
    Introduced in Section 6.1 as the risk aversion coefficient when information asymmetry I=0. Not estimated from data.
  • s_lambda (sensitivity of risk aversion to information asymmetry) = none
    Introduced in Section 6.1 in the exponential model lambda(I) = lambda_0 * e^(s_lambda * I). Its sign and magnitude are left unspecified, making it a free modeling parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Mean-variance utility representation: risk-adjusted value is E(X) - lambda * sigma(X).
    Used in Section 1.2 to quantify risk-adjusted value of AI investments. This is a standard finance formula, not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Information asymmetry changes risk aversion exponentially: lambda(I) = lambda_0 * e^(s_lambda * I).
    Proposed in Section 6.1 without empirical justification or derivation. The exponential form is chosen for illustration.
  • domain assumption Market governance mechanisms, if given standardized information, will effectively price AI risk and induce risk-reducing behavior.
    Assumed throughout Sections 2 to 6, based on case studies from real estate, Zoom, NASA, and BP. No evidence from AI markets is presented.
  • domain assumption Standardized disclosures can reduce information asymmetry sufficiently to change capital allocation.
    Argued in Sections 6 and 7; the paper posits that disclosure is the foundation of the four mechanisms, but does not demonstrate a causal link.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI Governance through Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFUGS7F7

@misc{pith2026250117755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI Governance through Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFUGS7F7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.17755}
}
read the original abstract

This paper argues that market governance mechanisms should be considered a key approach in the governance of artificial intelligence (AI), alongside traditional regulatory frameworks. While current governance approaches have predominantly focused on regulation, we contend that market-based mechanisms offer effective incentives for responsible AI development. We examine four emerging vectors of market governance: insurance, auditing, procurement, and due diligence, demonstrating how these mechanisms can affirm the relationship between AI risk and financial risk while addressing capital allocation inefficiencies. While we do not claim that market forces alone can adequately protect societal interests, we maintain that standardised AI disclosures and market mechanisms can create powerful incentives for safe and responsible AI development. This paper urges regulators, economists, and machine learning researchers to investigate and implement market-based approaches to AI governance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 4 AI market governance mechanisms. It is important to note that AI Risk and its associated uncertainty are a major barrier to AI adoption across the economy [6, 106]. This is exemplified by how AI service providers have resorted to providing unlimited indemnities to maintain their sales volume [26]. Market governance mechanisms work to reduce asymmetry and risk, enhancing the stability and efficiency of markets and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 1. D Scatter Plot of RAV as a Function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of Information Asymmetry on Risk Aversion Coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 6 macro stages of the large AI model production line. This is a simplified overview. Other stages are described in the article text. This is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

171 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, and B. McGrew. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Ackert and R

    L. Ackert and R. Deaves. 2009. Behavioral finance: Psychology, decision-making, and markets . Cengage Learning

    2009

  3. [3]

    Federal Aviation Administration. 2017. FAA Evaluation of Commercial Human Space Flight Safety Frameworks and Key Industry Indicators . Technical Report. Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/Sec.-111-Report-to-Congress-Evaluation-of-Commercial-Human-Space- Flight-Safety-Frameworks-and-Key-Industry-Indicators.pdf ...

    2017

  4. [4]

    Copyright Alliance. 2023. AI and Copyright in 2023: In the Courts. https://copyrightalliance.org/ai-copyright-courts/

    2023

  5. [5]

    Onur Altintas. 2024. Navigating uncertainty: enhancing decision-making in healthcare and interpretable AI adoption . Ph. D. Dissertation

    2024

  6. [6]

    Nicolas Ameye, Jacques Bughin, and Nicolas van Zeebroeck. 2023. How uncertainty shapes herding in the corporate use of artificial intelligence technology. Technovation 127 (2023), 102846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102846

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Anderljung et al

    M. Anderljung et al. 2023. Frontier AI regulation: Managing emerging risks to public safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03718 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    AON. 2024. Generative AI: Emerging Risks and Insurance Market Trends. https://www.aon.com/en/insights/articles/how-is-the-insurance-market-responding- to-generative-ai

    2024

Show all 171 references
  1. [9]

    Arrilucea and European Commission

    E. Arrilucea and European Commission. 2018. Apollo Project - Mission-oriented R&I Policies: In-depth Case Studies . Technical Report. https://research-and- innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3fb7597a-1680-4dff-86a3-1b82b02ad4b0_en?filename=mission_oriented_r_and_i_polic...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Artzner, F

    P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J. M. Eber, D. Heath, and H. Ku. 2007. Coherent multiperiod risk adjusted values and Bellman’s principle. Annals of Operations Research 152 (2007), 5–22

    2007

  3. [11]

    Arvidsson

    S. Arvidsson. 2011. Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual report: A management-team perspective. Journal of intellectual capital 12, 2 (2011), 277–300

    2011

  4. [12]

    PRI Association. 2024. Annual report 2024. https://www.unpri.org/about-us/about-the-pri/annual-report

    2024

  5. [13]

    H Kent Baker and Victor Ricciardi. 2014. Investor behavior: The psychology of financial planning and investing . John Wiley & Sons

    2014

  6. [15]

    Runa Bhaumik, Vineet Srivastava, Arash Jalali, Shanta Ghosh, and Ranganathan Chandrasekharan. 2023. Mindwatch: A smart cloud-based ai solution for suicide ideation detection leveraging large language models. medRxiv (2023), 2023–09

    2023

  7. [16]

    Boettke and R

    P. Boettke and R. Candela. 2021. The common sense of economics and divergent approaches in economic thought: A view from risk, uncertainty, and profit. Journal of Institutional Economics 17, 6 (2021), 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744137421000229

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    Longpre, Sayash Kapoor, Nestor Maslej, Betty Xiong, Daniel Zhang, and Percy Liang

    Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, S. Longpre, Sayash Kapoor, Nestor Maslej, Betty Xiong, Daniel Zhang, and Percy Liang. 2023. The Foundation Model Transparency Index. ArXiv abs/2310.12941 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:264306385

    2023 arXiv

  9. [18]

    D. Cahn. 2024. The AI Supply Chain Tug of War. https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/the-ai-supply-chain-tug-of-war/

    2024

  10. [19]

    R. Calo. 2017. Artificial intelligence policy: a primer and roadmap. UC Davis Law Review 51 (2017), 399

    2017

  11. [20]

    Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang. 2022. Quantifying memorization across neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  12. [21]

    S. Cha. 2024. Towards an international regulatory framework for AI safety: Lessons from the IAEA’s nuclear safety regulations. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11, 1 (2024), 1–13

    2024

  13. [22]

    Charles, A

    V. Charles, A. Emrouznejad, and T. Gherman. 2023. A critical analysis of the integration of blockchain and artificial intelligence for supply chain. Annals of Operations Research 327, 1 (2023), 7–47

    2023

  14. [23]

    J. Chen, S. H. Kao, H. He, W. Zhuo, S. Wen, C. H. Lee, and S. H. G. Chan. 2023. Run, don’t walk: chasing higher FLOPS for faster neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 12021–12031

    2023

  15. [24]

    Frederic T Chong, Martijn JR Heck, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Adel AM Saleh, and Hassan MG Wassel. 2013. Data center energy efficiency: Improving energy efficiency in data centers beyond technology scaling. IEEE design & test 31, 1 (2013), 93–104

    2013

  16. [25]

    Y. Y. Chong. 2004. Investment risk management. John Wiley & Sons

    2004

  17. [26]

    Google Cloud. [n. d.]. https://cloud.google.com/terms/service-terms

  18. [27]

    Bain & Company. 2024. The Future of Insurance: As Risks Mount, Insurers Aim to Augment Protection with Prevention. https://www.bain.com/insights/future- of-insurance-as-risks-mount-insurers-aim-to-augment-protection-with-prevention/

    2024

  19. [28]

    Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adrià Garriga-Alonso

    Arthur Conmy, Augustine N. Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adrià Garriga-Alonso. 2023. Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretability. ArXiv abs/2304.14997 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258418244

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Sarah Constantin. 2024. The Great Data Integration Schlep. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7L8ZwMJkhLXjSa7tD/the-great-data-integration-schlep

    2024

  21. [30]

    Shane Coughlan. 2020. Standardizing Open Source License Compliance With OpenChain. Computer 53 (2020), 70–74. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 226248064

    2020

  22. [31]

    Francesco Croce, Maksym Andriushchenko, Vikash Sehwag, Edoardo Debenedetti, Edoardo Debenedetti, Mung Chiang, Prateek Mittal, and Matthias Hein. 2020. RobustBench: a standardized adversarial robustness benchmark. ArXiv abs/2010.09670 (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor...

    2020 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Cullenward and D

    D. Cullenward and D. G. Victor. 2020. Making Climate Policy Work. John Wiley & Sons

    2020

  24. [33]

    Curtis, J

    Q. Curtis, J. Fisch, and A. Z. Robertson. 2021. Do ESG mutual funds deliver on their promises? Mich. L. Rev. 120 (2021), 393

    2021

  25. [34]

    Daley, T

    B. Daley, T. Geelen, and B. Green. 2024. Due diligence. The Journal of Finance 79, 3 (2024), 2115–2161

    2024

  26. [35]

    Decarolis et al

    F. Decarolis et al. 2021. Buyers’ role in innovation procurement: Evidence from US military R&D contracts. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 30, 4 (2021), 697–720

    2021

  27. [36]

    Deloitte. 2024. Deloitte’s State of Generative AI in the Enterprise Quarter three report. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/ consulting/us-state-of-gen-ai-q3.pdf#page=3.11

    2024

  28. [37]

    Deloitte. 2024. Life Sciences Industry Accounting Guide. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/audit/us-life-sciences-industry- accounting-guide-2024.pdf

    2024

  29. [38]

    S. S. Dikolli, M. M. Frank, Z. M. Guo, and L. J. Lynch. 2022. Walk the talk: ESG mutual fund voting on shareholder proposals. Review of Accounting Studies 27, 3 (2022), 864–896

    2022

  30. [39]

    Executive Services Directorate. 2014. Department of Defense Manual: Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Proce- dures. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/412024m.pdf?ver=2017-12-13-110538-837 Retrieved from https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docume...

    2014

  31. [40]

    Ben Dor and Cary Coglianese

    Lavi M. Ben Dor and Cary Coglianese. 2021. Procurement as AI Governance. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2, 4 (Dec. 2021), 192–199

    2021

  32. [41]

    J. R. Doty. 2014. The Role of Audit in Economic Growth. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Future of Financial Reporting. https://www.uschamber.com/financial- reporting

    2014

  33. [42]

    Wenyu Du, Tongxu Luo, Zihan Qiu, Zeyu Huang, Yikang Shen, Reynold Cheng, Yike Guo, and Jie Fu. 2024. Stacking Your Transformers: A Closer Look at Model Growth for Efficient LLM Pre-Training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15319 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    The Economist. 2024. Unexpectedly, the cost of big cyber-attacks is falling. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/05/17/unexpectedly-the-cost-of- big-cyber-attacks-is-falling

    2024

  36. [45]

    S. Ee. 2023. Adapting Cybersecurity Frameworks to Manage Frontier AI Risks: a Defense-in-Depth Approach. Institute for AI Policy and Strategy (IAPS) (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    Francisco Eiras, Aleksander Petrov, Bertie Vidgen, Christian Schroeder, Fabio Pizzati, Katherine Elkins, Supratik Mukhopadhyay, Adel Bibi, Aaron Purewal, Csaba Botos, Fabro Steibel, Fazel Keshtkar, Fazl Barez, Genevieve Smith, Gianluca Guadagni, Jon Chun, Jordi Cabot, Joseph M...

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    El-Mahdi El-Mhamdi, Sadegh Farhadkhani, Rachid Guerraoui, Nirupam Gupta, Lê-Nguyên Hoang, Rafael Pinot, Sébastien Rouault, and John Stephan. 2022. On the impossible safety of large AI models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15259 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Ertel, Roland W

    Ivan D. Ertel, Roland W. Newkirk, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS, and SPACE ADMINISTRATION. 1978.The Apollo Spacecraft. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

    1978

  40. [49]

    Silke Finken and C. Laux. 2009. Catastrophe Bonds and Reinsurance: The Competitive Effect of Information-Insensitive Triggers. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539- 6975.2009.01317.x

    2009

  41. [50]

    Flöstrand and N

    P. Flöstrand and N. Ström. 2006. The valuation relevance of non-financial information. Management Research News 29, 9 (2006), 580–587

    2006

  42. [51]

    Fortune. 2024. AI Risks in Fortune 500 Companies’ Annual Reports. (August 2024). https://fortune.com/2024/08/18/ai-risks-fortune-500-companies-generative- artificial-intelligence-annual-reports/ Accessed: 2024-12-02

    2024

  43. [52]

    World Economic Forum. 2024. Global Risks Report 2021. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-global-risks-report-2021/

    2024

  44. [53]

    Daniel Ganji, Christos Kalloniatis, Haralambos Mouratidis, and Saeed Malekshahi Gheytassi. 2019. Approaches to develop and implement iso/iec 27001 standard-information security management systems: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Adv. Softw 12, 3 (2019)

    2019

  45. [54]

    Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2020. Defense Acquisitions Annual Assessment . Technical Report. Government Accountability Office. https: //www.gao.gov/ Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/

    2020

  46. [55]

    Gary Gereffi and Joonkoo Lee. 2016. Economic and Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains and Industrial Clusters: Why Governance Matters. Journal of Business Ethics 133, 1 (2016), 25–38

    2016

  47. [56]

    Zoubin Ghahramani. 2015. Probabilistic machine learning and artificial intelligence. Nature 521, 7553 (2015), 452–459

    2015

  48. [57]

    Greystone. 2024. Managing Risk and Rising Insurance Premiums in Commercial Real Estate. https://www.greystone.com/insights/managing-risk-and-rising- insurance-premiums-in-commercial-real-estate/

    2024

  49. [58]

    Ross Gruetzemacher, Alan Chan, Štěpán Los, Kevin Frazier, Siméon Campos, Matija Franklin, James Fox, Jose Hernandez-Orallo, Christin Manning, Philip Tomei, et al. 2023. An International Consortium for AI Risk Evaluations. In Socially Responsible Language Modelling Research

    2023

  50. [59]

    David Gunning and David W. Aha. 2019. DARPA’s Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Program. AI Mag. 40 (2019), 44–58. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:67773377

    2019

  51. [60]

    C. I. Gutierrez, A. Aguirre, R. Uuk, C. C. Boine, and M. Franklin. 2023. A proposal for a definition of general purpose artificial intelligence systems. Digital Society 2, 3 (2023), 36

    2023

  52. [61]

    Götze and Marc Gürtler

    T. Götze and Marc Gürtler. 2021. Risk transfer beyond reinsurance: the added value of CAT bonds. , 125-171 pages. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41288-021-00234-6

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    Gillian K Hadfield and Jack Clark. 2023. Regulatory markets: The future of ai governance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04914 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    Hannon, Y

    B. Hannon, Y. Kumar, D. Gayle, J. J. Li, and P. Morreale. 2024. Robust Testing of AI Language Model Resiliency with Novel Adversarial Prompts. Electronics 13, 5 (2024), 842

    2024

  55. [64]

    Hargreaves

    S. Hargreaves. 2010. BP’s $70 Billion Whipping. CNN (2010). https://money.cnn.com/2010/06/01/news/companies/BP_analysts/index.htm

    2010

  56. [65]

    M. G. Harvey and R. F. Lusch. 1995. Expanding the nature and scope of due diligence. Journal of Business Venturing 10, 1 (1995), 5–21

    1995

  57. [66]

    D. Harwell. 2020. Everybody seems to be using Zoom. But its security flaws could leave users at risk. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/02/ everybody-seems-be-using-zoom-its-security-flaws-could-leave-people-risk/

    2020

  58. [67]

    O. A. Hassan and C. Marston. 2019. Corporate financial disclosure measurement in the empirical accounting literature: A review article. The International Journal of Accounting 54, 2 (2019), 1950006

    2019

  59. [68]

    P. M. Healy and K. G. Palepu. 2001. Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31, 1-3 (2001), 405–440

    2001

  60. [69]

    Heineman

    B. Heineman. 2011. How the BP Commission Dropped the Ball. Harvard Business Review (2011). https://hbr.org/2011/01/dropped-ball-on-bp-governance

    2011

  61. [70]

    Hendrycks, C

    D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Basart, A. Zou, M. Mazeika, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Hendrycks, C

    D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Kadavath, A. Arora, S. Basart, E. Tang, and J. Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Merve Hickok. 2022. Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: new risks and future proofing. AI & SOCIETY 39, 3 (Oct. 2022), 1213–1227

    2022

  64. [73]

    Janine S Hiller and Roberta S Russell. 2017. Privacy in crises: The NIST privacy framework. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 25, 1 (2017), 31–38

    2017

  65. [74]

    P. Howson. 2017. Due diligence: The critical stage in mergers and acquisitions . Routledge

    2017

  66. [75]

    M. M. Hudson and P. Stavrand. 2007. Best Practice Guidance for Angel Groups - Post Investment Monitoring. Corporate Governance: Disclosure (2007). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:111152938

    2007

  67. [76]

    Open Source Initiative. 2004. Open Source Initiative

    2004

  68. [77]

    Corporate Finance Institute. 2023. Fortune 500 - Top Companies, Methodology, and Key Stats. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/equities/fortune- global-500/

    2023

  69. [78]

    Brookings Institution. 2011. Balancing Disclosure, Protection of Trade Secrets, and Patentability in Light of Patent Reform. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ balancing-disclosure-protection-of-trade-secrets-and-patentability-in-light-of-patent-reform/

    2011

  70. [79]

    Myeongjun Jang, Antonios Georgiadis, Yiyun Zhao, and Fran Silavong. 2024. DriftWatch: A Tool that Automatically Detects Data Drift and Extracts Representative Examples Affected by Drift. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for...

    2024

  71. [80]

    Enrique Jaureguialzo. 2011. PUE: The Green Grid metric for evaluating the energy efficiency in DC (Data Center). Measurement method using the power demand. In 2011 IEEE 33rd International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) . IEEE, 1–8

    2011

  72. [81]

    Harris, Maximilian Mozes, Herbie Bradley, Roberta Raileanu, and Robert McHardy

    Jean Kaddour, J. Harris, Maximilian Mozes, Herbie Bradley, Roberta Raileanu, and Robert McHardy. 2023. Challenges and Applications of Large Language Models. ArXiv abs/2307.10169 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259982665

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Kauffman and T

    R. Kauffman and T. A. Weber. 2021. Improving New Digital Market Mechanisms. Journal of Management Information Systems 38 (2021), 574–578. https: //doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2021.1958541

    2021

  74. [83]

    Tahseen Khan, Wenhong Tian, Shashikant Ilager, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2022. Workload forecasting and energy state estimation in cloud data centres: ML-centric approach. Future Generation Computer Systems 128 (2022), 320–332

    2022

  75. [84]

    Ray Kiely. 1998. Neoliberalism revised? A critical account of World Bank conceptions of good governance and market friendly intervention. International Journal of Health Services 28, 4 (1998), 683–702

    1998

  76. [85]

    Peter Kieseberg, Christina Buttinger, Laura Kaltenbrunner, Marlies Temper, and Simon Tjoa. 2022. Security considerations for the procurement and acquisition of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE) . IEEE, 1–7

    2022

  77. [86]

    F. H. Knight. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Houghton Mifflin

    1921

  78. [87]

    Koh and D

    P. Koh and D. Reeb. 2014. R&D disclosures. Working Paper, National University of Singapore

    2014

  79. [88]

    KPMG. [n. d.]. How risk and compliance can accelerate generative AI adoption. https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2023/risk-function-accelerate-generative-ai- adoption.html

    2023

  80. [89]

    N. Krenz. 2022. An Analysis of the 2020 Zoom Breach. https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2022/03/13/an-analysis-of-the-2020-zoom-breach

    2022

  81. [90]

    R. J. Kueppers and K. B. Sullivan. 2010. How and why an independent audit matters. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 7, 4 (2010), 286–293

    2010

  82. [91]

    Gavin Leech, Juan J Vazquez, Misha Yagudin, Niclas Kupper, and Laurence Aitchison. 2024. Questionable practices in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12220 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Yucheng Li. 2023. Unlocking context constraints of llms: Enhancing context efficiency of llms with self-information-based content filtering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12102 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Kotsiantis

    Pantelis Linardatos, Vasilis Papastefanopoulos, and Sotiris B. Kotsiantis. 2020. Explainable AI: A Review of Machine Learning Interpretability Methods. Entropy 23 (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:229722844

    2020

  85. [94]

    Anat Lior. 2020. AI entities as AI agents: Artificial intelligence liability and the AI Respondeat Superior Analogy. Mitchell Hamline Law Review 46, 5 (2020), 2

    2020

  86. [95]

    A. Lior. 2021. Insuring AI: The role of insurance in artificial intelligence regulation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 35 (2021), 467

    2021

  87. [96]

    Yiheng Liu, Hao He, Tianle Han, Xu Zhang, Mengyuan Liu, Jiaming Tian, Yutong Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Xiaohui Gao, Tianyang Zhong, et al. 2024. Understanding llms: A comprehensive overview from training to inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02038 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  88. [97]

    DW Magazine. 2024. Over-Regulation: The Silent Killer of Innovation and Invention

    2024

  89. [98]

    David Manheim, Sammy Martin, Mark Bailey, Mikhail Samin, and Ross Greutzmacher. 2024. The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13060 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Frederic Marimon and Martí Casadesús. 2017. Reasons to adopt ISO 50001 energy management system. Sustainability 9, 10 (2017), 1740

    2017

  91. [100]

    Stefan Markowski, Peter Hall, and Robert Wylie. 2010. Defense Procurement and Industry Policy: A Small Country Perspective . Routledge

    2010

  92. [101]

    Marsh. 2021. The Changing Face of Cyber Claims 2021

    2021

  93. [102]

    Mantas Mazeika, Long Phan, Xuwang Yin, Andy Zou, Zifan Wang, Norman Mu, Elham Sakhaee, Nathaniel Li, Steven Basart, Bo Li, et al. 2024. Harmbench: A standardized evaluation framework for automated red teaming and robust refusal. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04249 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    McAleese

    S. McAleese. 2023. An Overview of the AI Safety Funding Situation. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/XdhwXppfqrpPL2YDX/an-overview-of-the-ai- safety-funding-situation

    2023

  95. [104]

    Jack R McCaffrey. 2021. NASA’S SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS: EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE ACQUISITION IN EXPLORING THE FINAL FRONTIER. Public Contract Law Journal 51, 1 (2021), 111–130

    2021

  96. [105]

    J. J. McCullough and M. J. Anstett. 2024. Public Procurement Laws and Regulations USA 2024. International Comparative Legal Guides International Business Reports (February 8 2024). https://iclg.com/practice-areas/public-procurement-laws-and-regulations/usa Accessed: 2024-12-02

    2024

  97. [106]

    McKinsey and Company. 2024. The state of AI in early 2024: Gen AI adoption spikes and starts to generate value. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/ quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai

    2024

  98. [107]

    Eva Micheler and Anna Whaley. 2020. Regulatory technology: replacing law with computer code. European Business Organization Law Review 21 (2020), 349–377

    2020

  99. [108]

    Sparsh Mittal. 2014. Power management techniques for data centers: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.6681 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Xiaopeng Mo and Jie Xu. 2021. Energy-efficient federated edge learning with joint communication and computation design. Journal of Communications and Information Networks 6, 2 (2021), 110–124

    2021

  101. [110]

    Moutii and M

    M. Moutii and M. Moutii. 2024. EU AI Act: How stricter regulations could hamper Europe’s AI innovation. https://en.irefeurope.org/publications/online- articles/article/eu-ai-act-how-stricter-regulations-could-hamper-europes-ai-innovation/

    2024

  102. [111]

    F. Musweu. 2018. The disclosure of financial and non-financial information in the corporate world

    2018

  103. [112]

    BBC News. 2020. Coronavirus: Zoom under increased scrutiny as popularity soars. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52115434

    2020

  104. [113]

    Novikov, Maryna Dubinina, and Vitalii Kuzoma

    O. Novikov, Maryna Dubinina, and Vitalii Kuzoma. 2018. DUE DILIGENCE: ESSENCE AND POSSIBLE PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies 4 (2018), 141–146. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55143491

    2018

  105. [114]

    NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS). 1971. What Made Apollo A Success? Technical Report. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19720005243

    1971

  106. [115]

    Nyce et al

    C. Nyce et al. 2015. The capitalization of insurance premiums in house prices. Journal of Risk and Insurance 82, 4 (2015), 891–919

    2015

  107. [116]

    Abiodun Finbarrs Oketunji, Muhammad Anas, and Deepthi Saina. 2023. Large Language Model (LLM) Bias Index - LLMBI. ArXiv abs/2312.14769 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:266521434

    2023 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. 2021. ESG & Long-Term Disclosures: The State of Play in Biopharma. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/ 2021/07/01/esg-long-term-disclosures-the-state-of-play-in-biopharma/

    2021

  109. [118]

    OpenAI. 2023. Preparedness framework: Understanding risks, evaluating systems, and improving our readiness (Beta). https://cdn.openai.com/openai- preparedness-framework-beta.pdf

    2023

  110. [119]

    OpenAI. 2024. Model Spec. https://cdn.openai.com/spec/model-spec-2024-05-08.html Accessed: 2024-12-02

    2024

  111. [120]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems 35...

    2022

  112. [121]

    Pallardy

    R. Pallardy. [n. d.]. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. https://www.britannica.com/event/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill/Cleanup-efforts

  113. [122]

    Venkatesh Balavadhani Parthasarathy, Ahtsham Zafar, Aafaq Khan, and Arsalan Shahid. 2024. The ultimate guide to fine-tuning llms from basics to breakthroughs: An exhaustive review of technologies, research, best practices, applied research challenges and opportunities. arXiv p...

    2024 arXiv

  114. [123]

    David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le, Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, and Jeff Dean. 2021. Carbon emissions and large neural network training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  115. [124]

    Petr Petera and Jaroslav Wagner. 2015. Global reporting initiative (GRI) and its reflections in the literature. European Financial and Accounting Journal 10, 2 (2015), 13–32

    2015

  116. [125]

    Podium. 2024. Why Small Businesses are Essential to Our Economy

    2024

  117. [126]

    Pozzoli and M

    M. Pozzoli and M. Raffaele. 2022. Non-financial information and company market value. Management Control: special issue 2 2022 (2022), 167–187

    2022

  118. [127]

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  119. [128]

    M. S. Rapp, T. Schmid, and D. Urban. 2014. The value of financial flexibility and corporate financial policy. Journal of Corporate Finance 29 (2014), 288–302

    2014

  120. [129]

    Munich Re. 2024. Insuring Generative AI: Risks and Mitigation Strategies. https://www.munichre.com/content/dam/munichre/contentlounge/website- pieces/documents/MR_AI-Whitepaper-Insuring-Generative-AI.pdf

    2024

  121. [130]

    R. Reider. 2007. Financial audits: Taking an operational view. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance 18, 4 (2007), 19–25

    2007

  122. [131]

    D. Rein, B. L. Hou, A. C. Stickland, J. Petty, R. Y. Pang, J. Dirani, and S. R. Bowman. 2023. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof Q&A benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  123. [132]

    ESR Trends Report. 2024. ESG at ESR: Space and Investment Solutions for a Sustainable Future. https://www.esr.com/white-paper/esg-at-esr-space-and- investment-solutions-for-a-sustainable-future/

    2024

  124. [133]

    Pharmaceutical Technology Report. 2024. The top pharmaceutical companies by R&D expenditure. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/the- top-pharmaceutical-companies-by-rd-expenditure/

    2024

  125. [134]

    Statista Report. 2024. Total global spending on pharmaceutical research and development from 2014 to 2030. https://www.statista.com/statistics/309466/global- r-and-d-expenditure-for-pharmaceuticals/

    2024

  126. [135]

    Reuters. 2024. Authors sue Anthropic for copyright infringement over AI training. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/authors-sue- anthropic-copyright-infringement-over-ai-training-2024-08-20/

    2024

  127. [136]

    Roberts et al

    H. Roberts et al. 2021. The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: An analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation . Springer International Publishing

    2021

  128. [137]

    N. Ruiz, A. Kortylewski, W. Qiu, C. Xie, S. A. Bargal, A. Yuille, and S. Sclaroff. 2022. Simulated adversarial testing of face recognition models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 4145–4155

    2022

  129. [138]

    Saini, M

    N. Saini, M. Singhania, M. Hasan, M. P. Yadav, and M. Z. Abedin. 2022. Non-financial disclosures and sustainable development: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022), 135173

    2022

  130. [139]

    S. Sarwar. 2023. 20 Largest Hedge Hedge Funds in the World and Their Top Stock Picks. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-largest-hedge-hedge-funds- 193651548.html?guccounter=1

    2023

  131. [140]

    Alberta M Sbragia. 2000. Governance, the state, and the market: what is going on? Governance 13, 2 (2000), 243–250

    2000

  132. [141]

    Schilling-Vacaflor and A

    A. Schilling-Vacaflor and A. Lenschow. 2021. Hardening foreign corporate accountability through mandatory due diligence in the European Union? New trends and persisting challenges. Regulation & Governance 17, 3 (2021), 677–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12402

    2021 doi

  133. [142]

    Schmidt and R

    H. Schmidt and R. Bales. 2018. Globalization of Defense Procurement: International Perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies 49, 4 (2018), 465–482

    2018

  134. [143]

    J. Schuett. 2023. Defining the scope of AI regulations. Law, Innovation and Technology 15, 1 (2023), 60–82

    2023

  135. [144]

    Moshe Schwartz and Stephen Howard Chadwick. 2008. Defense Acquisitions: Overview, Issues, and Options for Congress . Technical Report. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress

    2008

  136. [145]

    Sharkey et al

    L. Sharkey et al. 2024. A Causal Framework for AI Regulation and Auditing. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.10295

    2024 arXiv

  137. [146]

    W. F. Sharpe. 1964. Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The Journal of Finance 19, 3 (1964), 425–442

    1964

  138. [147]

    Politics Shorenstein Center on Media and Harvard Kennedy School Public Policy. 2024. Why Compliance Costs of AI Commercialization May Be Holding Start-Ups Back. https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/why-compliance-costs-of-ai-commercialization-maybe-holding-start-ups-back/

    2024

  139. [148]

    Yash Raj Shrestha, Georg von Krogh, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2023. Building open-source AI. Nature Computational Science 3 (2023), 908 – 911. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:264539067

    2023

  140. [149]

    Slattery, A

    P. Slattery, A. K. Saeri, E. A. Grundy, J. Graham, M. Noetel, R. Uuk, and N. Thompson. 2024. The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review, Database, and Taxonomy of Risks From Artificial Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12622 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  141. [150]

    Janet Bautista Smith. 2016. The art of integrating strategic planning, process metrics, risk mitigation, and auditing . Quality Press

    2016

  142. [151]

    B. Snow. 2023. Mergers & Acquisitions for Dummies . John Wiley & Sons

    2023

  143. [152]

    Sperber, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS, and SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    K. Sperber, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS, and SPACE ADMINISTRATION. 1973. Apollo Experience Report - Reliability and Quality Assurance . Technical Report. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730023037/downloads/19730023037.pdf Re...

    1973

  144. [153]

    Sharath Turuvekere Sreenivas, Saurav Muralidharan, Raviraj Joshi, Marcin Chochowski, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catanzaro, Jan Kautz, and Pavlo Molchanov. 2024. Llm pruning and distillation in practice: The minitron approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11796 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  145. [154]

    M. A. Starr. 2008. Socially responsible investment and pro-social change. Journal of Economic Issues 42, 1 (2008), 51–73

    2008

  146. [155]

    Statista. 2024. Countries with the highest military spending worldwide in 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262742/countries-with-the-highest-military- spending/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20led%20the,to%202.4%20trillion%20U.S.%20dollars. Accessed: 2024-12-02

    2024

  147. [156]

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb. 2020. Principia Politica: Politics & Ethics under Scaling and Uncertainty

    2020

  148. [157]

    Tate and M

    J. Tate and M. Panteghini. 2007. Standardisation–the theory and the practice. Clin Biochem Rev. 28, 4 (2007), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.18392125

    2007

  149. [158]

    Thewissen, Ö

    J. Thewissen, Ö. Arslan-Ayaydin, W. Westerman, and A. Dorsman. 2024. The ESG Framework and the Energy Industry: Demand and Supply, Market Policies, and Value Creation. In The ESG Framework and the Energy Industry: Demand and Supply, Market Policies and Value Creation . Springe...

    2024

  150. [159]

    Access to Medicine Foundation. 2020. Which information matters most? Transparency by Pharma that builds access to medicine plus trust and engage- ment. https://accesstomedicinefoundation.org/news/which-information-matters-most-transparency-by-pharma-that-builds-access-to-medic...

    2020

  151. [160]

    P. Tomei. 2024. The Commodification of Risk. https://coilink.org/20.500.12592/4ktc57q

    2024

  152. [161]

    Turzo, G

    T. Turzo, G. Marzi, C. Favino, and S. Terzani. 2022. Non-financial reporting research and practice: Lessons from the last decade. Journal of Cleaner Production 345 (2022), 131154

    2022

  153. [162]

    Van Reenen, P

    J. Van Reenen, P. Aghion, and A. Bergeaud. 2021. The Impact of Regulation on Innovation

    2021

  154. [163]

    Vanstraelen, M

    A. Vanstraelen, M. T. Zarzeski, and S. W. Robb. 2003. Corporate nonfinancial disclosure practices and financial analyst forecast ability across three European countries. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting 14, 3 (2003), 249–278

    2003

  155. [164]

    Juniper Ventures. 2024. AI Assurance Technology. https://www.aiat.report/

    2024

  156. [165]

    Yanshu Wang, Tong Yang, Xiyan Liang, Guoan Wang, Hanning Lu, Xu Zhe, Yaoming Li, and Li Weitao. 2024. Art and Science of Quantizing Large-Scale Models: A Comprehensive Overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11650 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  157. [166]

    Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2024. Jailbroken: How does llm safety training fail? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  158. [167]

    Weinstein

    D. Weinstein. 2024. How AI can bring new opportunity in the UK. https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/united-kingdom/ai-potential-uk/

    2024

  159. [168]

    Gregor N. F. Weiß, Denefa Bostandzic, and Felix Irresberger. 2013. Catastrophe Bonds and Systemic Risk. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2313160

    2013 doi

  160. [169]

    Whiteside

    E. Whiteside. 2024. Where Do Pension Funds Typically Invest? https://www.investopedia.com/articles/credit-loans-mortgages/090116/what-do-pension-funds- typically-invest.asp

    2024

  161. [170]

    R. Wilson. 2024. Sovereign Wealth Funds: An Introduction. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/sovereign-wealth-fund.asp

    2024

  162. [171]

    Ziqing Zeng and Sachin S Sapatnekar. 2023. Energy-efficient hardware acceleration of shallow machine learning applications. In 2023 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE) . IEEE, 1–6

    2023

  163. [172]

    hallucinations

    H. Ziady. 2020. BP will Slash Oil Production by 40% and Pour Billions into Green Energy. CNN (2020). https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/04/business/bp-oil-clean- energy/index.html A AI Risk Standardisation Targets A.1 Data Acquisition and Privacy in AI Systems Data acquisition is...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.