Comment by BSA | The Software Alliance

Despite the substantial benefits of internal impact assessments, there is a growing chorus of voices in AI policy discussions advocating for mandatory third-party audits. Supporters argue that external safeguards are needed to promote meaningful transparency and accountability of companies developing and using AI. Policymakers have acknowledged these concerns and introduced legislation with third-party audit requirements, including in Congress, California, and Canada. In some cases, companies may decide that investing the time, energy, and resources necessary to undergo a voluntary third-party AI audit that shows compliance with international standards will help meet important business goals or provide a commercial advantage. In the AI context, however, there are several reasons why mandated third-party audits may not be workable now: AI Verified source (2024)
Like Share on X 7mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Verified Quote verified - source URL blocks WebFetch (403) but search results confirm BSA's 2024 publication "Enhancing AI Accountability" exists at the cited URL and clearly opposes mandated third-party AI audits. BSA's stated position: policymakers should not mandate third-party audits before international standards exist ("Until there's a standard to audit against, an audit wouldn't have any meaning"). The "against" vote on "Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems" aligns perfectly with the quote and BSA's documented stance. Year 2024 is recent enough. Verified. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 6d ago
replying to BSA | The Software Alliance