An FDA for AI? Pitfalls and Plausibility of Approval Regulation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence

Daniel Carpenter,Carson Ezell

2024-08-02

Abstract:Observers and practitioners of artificial intelligence (AI) have proposed an FDA-style licensing regime for the most advanced AI models, or 'frontier' models. In this paper, we explore the applicability of approval regulation -- that is, regulation of a product that combines experimental minima with government licensure conditioned partially or fully upon that experimentation -- to the regulation of frontier AI. There are a number of reasons to believe that approval regulation, simplistically applied, would be inapposite for frontier AI risks. Domains of weak fit include the difficulty of defining the regulated product, the presence of Knightian uncertainty or deep ambiguity about harms from AI, the potentially transmissible nature of risks, and distributed activities among actors involved in the AI lifecycle. We conclude by highlighting the role of policy learning and experimentation in regulatory development, describing how learning from other forms of AI regulation and improvements in evaluation and testing methods can help to overcome some of the challenges we identify.

Computers and Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the paper attempts to solve

This paper aims to explore the feasibility and potential problems of applying the approval and regulatory model similar to that of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to frontier artificial intelligence (AI). Specifically, the paper mainly focuses on the following aspects:

1. **Defining regulated products**: In the biomedical field, the FDA can clearly identify and define products that need to be regulated (such as drug molecules or medical devices). However, in frontier AI, due to the generality and complexity of AI systems, it is difficult to clearly define which systems should be regulated. For example, fine - tuning or other modifications of the base model may change its risk characteristics, making it difficult to determine when a new system needs to be approved.

2. **Uncertainty in risk assessment**: In the biomedical field, harmful events are usually known and detectable, and can be described by probability models. In the AI field, there is "Knightian uncertainty", that is, there is deep ambiguity about the risks that AI may bring, which makes risk assessment more difficult.

3. **Transitivity and distribution of risks**: The risks of AI may be transitive and widely distributed among different participants in the AI life cycle. This means that an error or vulnerability occurring in one place may spread rapidly to other places, increasing the complexity of regulation.

4. **Challenges in experiments and tests**: In the biomedical field, the methods of experiments and tests are relatively standardized, and it can be observed whether these tests are carried out in accordance with the regulations. But in the AI field, due to the rapid change and development of technology, it is difficult to formulate unified test standards and ensure that all developers abide by these standards.

5. **Support from industrial structure and social institutions**: In the biomedical field, regulatory agencies can rely on relatively stable industrial structures and social institutions (such as medical institutions, professional associations, etc.) to support regulatory work. In the AI field, the current industrial structure is not yet mature and lacks a similar support system.

### Conclusion

The paper believes that simply applying the FDA - style approval and regulatory model to frontier AI may encounter many problems. Therefore, the author emphasizes the importance of policy experiments and learning, and points out that some challenges can be overcome by drawing on other forms of AI regulatory experience and improving evaluation and test methods. Finally, the paper calls for careful consideration of the applicability and feasibility of any regulatory system before considering it.

### Formula representation

Although the content of this article mainly involves policy and regulatory issues, in order to meet your requirements, the following are the formulaic representations of some key concepts mentioned in the article (if any):

- **Knightian uncertainty**: It can be represented by the formula \( P(A)=\text{undefined} \), where \( A \) is an event, indicating that some risks cannot be quantified by probability.

- **Probability model for risk assessment**: In the biomedical field, probability models are usually used to describe risks, for example:
\[
P(\text{adverse event}) = f(\text{dose}, \text{duration}, \text{population})
\]
where \( f \) is a function, representing the relationship between the probability of occurrence of adverse events and dose, duration, and population characteristics.

I hope this information can help you better understand the core problems and views of the paper. If you have more questions or need further explanation, please feel free to let me know!