AI Companies Should Report Pre- and Post-Mitigation Safety Evaluations
The rapid advancement of AI systems has raised widespread concerns about potential harms of frontier AI systems and the need for responsible evaluation and oversight. In this position paper, we argue that frontier AI companies should report both pre- and post-mitigation safety evaluations to enable informed policy decisions. Evaluating models at both stages provides policymakers with essential evidence to regulate deployment, access, and safety standards. We show that relying on either in isolation can create a misleading picture of model safety. Our analysis of AI safety disclosures from leading frontier labs identifies three critical gaps: (1) companies rarely evaluate both pre- and post-mitigation versions, (2) evaluation methods lack standardization, and (3) reported results are often too vague to inform policy. To address these issues, we recommend mandatory disclosure of pre- and post-mitigation capabilities to approved government bodies, standardized evaluation methods, and minimum transparency requirements for public safety reporting. These ensure that policymakers and regulators can craft targeted safety measures, assess deployment risks, and scrutinize companies' safety claims effectively.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Embodied Hazard Mitigation using Vision-Language Models for Autonomous Mobile Robots
Autonomous robots operating in dynamic environments should identify and report anomalies. Embodying proactive mitigation improves safety and operational continuity. This paper presents a multimodal anomaly detection and …
Anomaly DetectionAre Companies Taking AI Risks Seriously? A Systematic Analysis of Companies' AI Risk Disclosures in SEC 10-K forms
As Artificial Intelligence becomes increasingly central to corporate strategies, concerns over its risks are growing too. In response, regulators are pushing for greater transparency in how companies identify, report and…
Risk Reporting for Developers' Internal AI Model Use
Frontier AI companies first deploy their most advanced models internally, for weeks or months of safety testing, evaluation, and iteration, before a possible public release. For example, Anthropic recently developed a ne…
Existing Industry Practice for the EU AI Act's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice Safety and Security Measures
This report provides a detailed comparison between the measures proposed in the EU AI Act's General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice (Third Draft) and current practices adopted by leading AI companies. As the EU moves …
Predicting trucking accidents with truck drivers 'safety climate perception across companies: A transfer learning approach
There is a rising interest in using artificial intelligence (AI)-powered safety analytics to predict accidents in the trucking industry. Companies may face the practical challenge, however, of not having enough data to d…
Transfer Learning