Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safety
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In the context of rapid discoveries by leaders in AI, governments must consider how to design regulation that matches the increasing pace of new AI capabilities. Regulatory Markets for AI is a proposal designed with adaptability in mind. It involves governments setting outcome-based targets for AI companies to achieve, which they can show by purchasing services from a market of private regulators. We use an evolutionary game theory model to explore the role governments can play in building a Regulatory Market for AI systems that deters reckless behaviour. We warn that it is alarmingly easy to stumble on incentives which would prevent Regulatory Markets from achieving this goal. These 'Bounty Incentives' only reward private regulators for catching unsafe behaviour. We argue that AI companies will likely learn to tailor their behaviour to how much effort regulators invest, discouraging regulators from innovating. Instead, we recommend that governments always reward regulators, except when they find that those regulators failed to detect unsafe behaviour that they should have. These 'Vigilant Incentives' could encourage private regulators to find innovative ways to evaluate cutting-edge AI systems.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 76 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2023.
Builds on
25 of 76 references.
References · 25
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2020Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claimscited by 163
- 2018The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigationcited by 159
- 2017AI Safety Gridworldscited by 108
- 2019The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goalscited by 100
- 2014The structure and dynamics of multilayer networkscited by 51
- 2019The Role of Cooperation in Responsible AI Developmentcited by 21
- 2022The AI Index 2022 Annual Reportcited by 18
- 2022The Brussels Effect and Artificial Intelligence: How EU regulation will impact the global AI marketcited by 18
- 2019The Transformative Potential of Artificial Intelligencecited by 15
- 2021AI Certification: Advancing Ethical Practice by Reducing Information Asymmetriescited by 15
- 2019The Windfall Clause: Distributing the Benefits of AI for the Common Goodcited by 13
13 more
- 2019Regulatory Markets for AI Safetycited by 13
- 2021Why and How Governments Should Monitor AI Developmentcited by 13
- 2019The Offense-Defense Balance of Scientific Knowledge: Does Publishing AI Research Reduce Misuse?cited by 12
- 2022System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policycited by 11
- 2021Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI developmentcited by 10
- 2020Mediating Artificial Intelligence Developments through Negative and Positive Incentivescited by 9
- 2020Artificial Intelligence Development Races in Heterogeneous Settingscited by 8
- 2020The Tragedy of the AI Commonscited by 7
- 2022Actionable Guidance for High-Consequence AI Risk Management: Towards Standards Addressing AI Catastrophic Riskscited by 7
- 2021Institutional Incentives for the Evolution of Committed Cooperation: Ensuring Participation is as Important as Enhancing Compliancecited by 6
- 2022Social Diversity Reduces the Complexity and Cost of Fostering Fairnesscited by 6
- 2017Targeting Interventions in Networkscited by 3
- 2020Should Artificial Intelligence Governance be Centralised? Design Lessons from Historycited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.