Recent reporting suggests that the White House’s AI framework for voluntary testing of new AI models will not be released to the public. In a new blog post, Juan Londoño, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, discusses how this results in more questions than answers, writing in part:

“The White House’s approach to this framework seems to overlook one of the most important questions in enacting regulations: “What does this regulation aim to achieve?” In the case of an evaluation regime, its objective is to quell any concerns that these models might be unsafe to deploy or operate. But the White House has decided to enact a framework that is allegedly voluntary and invite-only, in which no one—except the evaluated companies, allegedly—knows what is being evaluated and in which the results of the evaluations are not published. How will the people know that these models have no major misalignment issues? That they can be properly constrained and have no substantial loss-of-control risk? If a lab’s safety assessment makes a false safety claim but still receives the government’s green light, can it still be held liable for the damages it might cause?”

To speak with Londoño, contact Christopher Tarvardian.