From Principles to Rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several jurisdictions are starting to regulate frontier AI systems (i.e. general-purpose AI systems that match or exceed the capabilities present in the most advanced systems). Requirements could be formulated as high-level principles (e.g. ‘frontier AI systems should be safe and secure’) or specific rules (e.g. ‘frontier AI systems must be evaluated for dangerous capabilities following a specific protocol’). While rules provide more certainty and are easier to enforce, they can quickly become outdated and lead to a box-ticking attitude. Conversely, while principles provide less certainty and are more difficult to enforce, they are more adaptable and more appropriate when regulators are unsure what behavior would best advance their regulatory objectives. The chapter recommends that policymakers initially mandate adherence to principles, ensure that regulators and third parties closely oversee compliance with these principles, and build up regulatory capacity. Over time, the approach should likely become more rule-based.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".