The Ada Lovelace Institute released a paper discussing the dependability of foundation models and the potential dangers associated with their misapplication. The institute draws comparisons between overseeing foundation models and the practices of the US Food and Drug Administration, aiming to provide insights on regulatory strategies for policymakers.

The paper proposes the application of FDA principles governing high-risk medical devices to fortify the regulation of sophisticated foundation models. It delineates suggestions for risk mitigation at each stage of the supply chain. However, it doesn't address global governance implications or AI in the medical field, concentrating instead on adapting lessons from medical device regulation to shape AI oversight.

AI foundational models possess distinctive characteristics-versatility across tasks, vulnerability to unforeseen behaviors, and wide accessibility-leading to risks like discrimination and the spread of misinformation. While the US and UK have issued guidelines, the EU's AI Act enforces stricter prerequisites before market release. Experts advocate for increased oversight due to the absence of clear safety benchmarks and the evolving nature of these models.

Why does this matter?

Regulating advanced AI models like GPT-4 holds immense significance due to their far-reaching societal impact. These models possess unprecedented capabilities, raising concerns about reliability, potential misuse, and inherent risks like discrimination and misinformation dissemination. Establishing effective regulatory frameworks, drawing lessons from FDA oversight, becomes pivotal to safeguard against these risks and ensure responsible AI deployment.