Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Models
Регулирование ChatGPT и других больших генеративных моделей ИИ
2023-06-12
SCID: 54.1/kgph5hru
Discuss with AI
AI regulationAI value chaincontent moderationdata protectionlarge generative AI models
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Large generative AI models (LGAIMs), such as ChatGPT, GPT-4 or Stable Diffusion, are rapidly transforming the way we communicate, illustrate, and create. However, AI regulation, in the EU and beyond, has primarily focused on conventional AI models, not LGAIMs. This paper will situate these new generative models in the current debate on trustworthy AI regulation, and ask how the law can be tailored to their capabilities. After laying technical foundations, the legal part of the paper proceeds in four steps, covering (1) direct regulation, (2) data protection, (3) content moderation, and (4) policy proposals. It suggests a novel terminology to capture the AI value chain in LGAIM settings by differentiating between LGAIM developers, deployers, professional and non-professional users, as well as recipients of LGAIM output. We tailor regulatory duties to these different actors along the value chain and suggest strategies to ensure that LGAIMs are trustworthy and deployed for the benefit of society at large. Rules in the AI Act and other direct regulation must match the specificities of pre-trained models. The paper argues for three layers of obligations concerning LGAIMs (minimum standards for all LGAIMs; high-risk obligations for high-risk use cases; collaborations along the AI value chain). In general, regulation should focus on concrete high-risk applications, and not the pre-trained model itself, and should include (i) obligations regarding transparency and (ii) risk management. Non-discrimination provisions (iii) may, however, apply to LGAIM developers. Lastly, (iv) the core of the DSA's content moderation rules should be expanded to cover LGAIMs. This includes notice and action mechanisms, and trusted flaggers.
Key Findings
1
Core regulatory requirements should include transparency obligations and risk management duties for LGAIMs.
2
Existing AI regulation has primarily targeted conventional AI, not large generative AI models (LGAIMs) like ChatGPT, GPT-4, or Stable Diffusion.
3
Non-discrimination provisions may appropriately apply to LGAIM developers.
4
Regulation should focus on concrete high-risk applications rather than on pre-trained models themselves, while matching rules in the AI Act to pre-trained model specificities.
5
Regulatory duties should be tailored to different actors along the LGAIM value chain, assigning specific obligations by role.
6
The Digital Services Act's content moderation framework should be expanded to cover LGAIMs, including notice-and-action mechanisms and trusted flaggers.
7
The paper proposes novel terminology for the LGAIM value chain, distinguishing developers, deployers, professional and non-professional users, and recipients of outputs.
8
Three layers of obligations are recommended: minimum standards for all LGAIMs, high-risk obligations for high-risk use cases, and collaborative obligations along the AI value chain.
Research Object
Large generative AI models (LGAIMs) such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, and Stable Diffusion
Research Subject
Regulatory duties, legal frameworks, and governance measures tailored to LGAIMs across the AI value chain, including direct regulation, data protection, content moderation, transparency, risk management, and obligations for developers/deployers/users
Publication Details
Publication Date
2023-06-12
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
421
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest