OpenAI has expressed a desire for the United States to take the lead in an international effort focused on developing global technical standards for cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including those capable of recursively improving their own functionalities.
This suggestion was released by the company in a publication this Monday (21), coinciding with the United Nations General Assembly meeting with world leaders. The initiative arises in a context of intense global debate on how to keep pace with the rapid progress of AI systems.
OpenAI advocates for the implementation of mechanisms that allow for the coexistence of national and international norms, along with standardized metrics and clear protocols for incident notification. According to the company, this would facilitate evidence comparison, risk analysis, and joint response to AI-related problems.
For OpenAI, international standards for safety and protection in the development of cutting-edge AI are as crucial as the alignment research needed to keep up with technological evolution.
Challenges and Proposals for International Coordination
The organization identified three main challenges that would justify international coordination, covering both open and closed AI models. Furthermore, the company maintains that laboratories involved in automated research or other advanced capabilities must conduct their work safely, adhering to basic principles of responsible authorship and current legislation.
One alternative suggested by OpenAI is to utilize the existing network of national AI safety institutes in various countries, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Kenya, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India, and the United Kingdom. These entities could assist in defining standards through the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) and national sectoral bodies, focusing on cutting-edge AI models and managing the risks and benefits of automated research, including RSI.
These standards would function as a common technical basis for measuring and evaluating capabilities, investigating risks, and confirming the effectiveness of protective mechanisms. OpenAI made it clear that such standards would not constitute licenses, pre-launch review requirements, or approval requirements for AI models; it would be up to national governments to decide how to integrate them into their legal systems.
The proposal also envisions that the standard-setting process be consultative, involving developers of open and closed models, independent technical experts, and universities. The goal is to ensure that standards are developed transparently, without favoring specific companies, nations, or business models.
Common Metrics and Incident Reporting
The second part of OpenAI's proposal focuses on creating uniform protocols and metrics for incident reporting. The company also encourages governments and critical infrastructure operators to create secure channels to share concerns related to national security, vulnerabilities, emerging threats, and best practices for cutting-edge AI.
Specifically, OpenAI mentioned the dialogue between the United States and China as an area where this communication could be deepened. The company argues that the United States is well-positioned to lead this effort due to its AI industry being at the technological forefront and the country possessing relevance in sectors such as finance, trade, defense, technology, and information systems.
According to the company's analysis, taking the lead at this time would help shape the global AI structure, while inaction could lead to an unequal and fragmented system. This proposal comes amid intense international discussion about the need to coordinate the development of advanced systems.
OpenAI and other industry leaders debate methods to keep pace with technological development given the inherent risks of systems that could exceed human oversight capacity. However, OpenAI emphasizes that the concept of 'pacing' does not imply determining a fixed speed for AI advancement; technically, the purpose is to ensure that alignment research and its application remain ahead of the systems' capabilities.
