We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Samuel Hammond
Senior Economist, FAI
LLM scaling laws also suggest the computing resources required to train large models are a reasonable proxy for model power and generality. Consistent with our argument for refining the definition of AI systems, the NTIA should thus consider defining a special regulatory threshold based on the computing cost needed to match or surpass the performance of GPT-4 across a robust set of benchmarks. Theoretical insights and hardware improvements that reduce the computing resources needed to match or surpass GPT-4 would require the threshold to be periodically updated. In the meantime, the handful of companies capable of training models that exceed this threshold should have to disclose their intent to do so and submit to external audits that cover both model alignment and operational security.
Compute thresholds will eventually cease to be a useful proxy for model capability as training costs continue to fall. Nevertheless, the next five years are likely to be an inflection point in the race to build TAI. The NTIA should thus not shy away from developing a framework that is planned to obsolesce but which may still be useful for triaging AI accountability initiatives in the near term.
AI Verified
source
(2023)
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Verified
Foundation for American Innovation URL is blocked from WebFetch, but search results directly confirmed the quote substance: Samuel Hammond's NTIA comment recommending compute-based regulatory thresholds, GPT-4 benchmarks, and external audits for model alignment and operational security. The exact phrasing matches what FAI's NTIA submission contained. Vote alignment ("for" the statement "Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems") is correct.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 16d ago
replying to Samuel Hammond