Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Wills, P

Open Problems in Technical AI Governance

Authors: Anka Reuel, Ben Bucknall, Stephen Casper, Tim Fist, Lisa Soder, Onni Aarne, Lewis Hammond, Lujain Ibrahim, Alan Chan, Peter Wills, Markus Anderljung, Ben Garfinkel, Lennart Heim, Andrew Trask, Gabriel Mukobi, Rylan Schaeffer, Mauricio Baker, Sara Hooker, Irene Solaiman, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Nitarshan Rajkumar, Nicolas Moës, Jeffrey Ladish, David Bau, Paul Bricman , et al. (8 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: AI progress is creating a growing range of risks and opportunities, but it is often unclear how they should be navigated. In many cases, the barriers and uncertainties faced are at least partly technical. Technical AI governance, referring to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI, seeks to address such challenges. It can help to (a) identify areas where interve… ▽ More AI progress is creating a growing range of risks and opportunities, but it is often unclear how they should be navigated. In many cases, the barriers and uncertainties faced are at least partly technical. Technical AI governance, referring to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI, seeks to address such challenges. It can help to (a) identify areas where intervention is needed, (b) identify and assess the efficacy of potential governance actions, and (c) enhance governance options by designing mechanisms for enforcement, incentivization, or compliance. In this paper, we explain what technical AI governance is, why it is important, and present a taxonomy and incomplete catalog of its open problems. This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance. △ Less

Submitted 16 April, 2025; v1 submitted 20 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Comments: Ben Bucknall and Anka Reuel contributed equally and share the first author position

Journal ref: Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025

IDs for AI Systems

Authors: Alan Chan, Noam Kolt, Peter Wills, Usman Anwar, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Nitarshan Rajkumar, Lewis Hammond, David Krueger, Lennart Heim, Markus Anderljung

Abstract: AI systems are increasingly pervasive, yet information needed to decide whether and how to engage with them may not exist or be accessible. A user may not be able to verify whether a system has certain safety certifications. An investigator may not know whom to investigate when a system causes an incident. It may not be clear whom to contact to shut down a malfunctioning system. Across a number of… ▽ More AI systems are increasingly pervasive, yet information needed to decide whether and how to engage with them may not exist or be accessible. A user may not be able to verify whether a system has certain safety certifications. An investigator may not know whom to investigate when a system causes an incident. It may not be clear whom to contact to shut down a malfunctioning system. Across a number of domains, IDs address analogous problems by identifying particular entities (e.g., a particular Boeing 747) and providing information about other entities of the same class (e.g., some or all Boeing 747s). We propose a framework in which IDs are ascribed to instances of AI systems (e.g., a particular chat session with Claude 3), and associated information is accessible to parties seeking to interact with that system. We characterize IDs for AI systems, provide concrete examples where IDs could be useful, argue that there could be significant demand for IDs from key actors, analyze how those actors could incentivize ID adoption, explore a potential implementation of our framework for deployers of AI systems, and highlight limitations and risks. IDs seem most warranted in settings where AI systems could have a large impact upon the world, such as in making financial transactions or contacting real humans. With further study, IDs could help to manage a world where AI systems pervade society. △ Less

Submitted 28 October, 2024; v1 submitted 17 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: Under review; accepted to RegML workshop at NeurIPS 2024

Path Planning Algorithms for Robotic Aquaculture Monitoring

Authors: Anthony Davis, Srijita Mukherjee, Paul S. Wills, Bing Ouyang

Abstract: Aerial drones have great potential to monitor large areas quickly and efficiently. Aquaculture is an industry that requires continuous water quality data to successfully grow and harvest fish. The Hybrid Aerial Underwater Robotic System (HAUCS) is designed to collect water quality data of aquaculture ponds to reduce labor costs for farmers. The routing of drones to cover each fish pond on an aquac… ▽ More Aerial drones have great potential to monitor large areas quickly and efficiently. Aquaculture is an industry that requires continuous water quality data to successfully grow and harvest fish. The Hybrid Aerial Underwater Robotic System (HAUCS) is designed to collect water quality data of aquaculture ponds to reduce labor costs for farmers. The routing of drones to cover each fish pond on an aquaculture farm can be reduced to the Vehicle Routing Problem. A dataset is created to simulate the distribution of ponds on a farm and is used to assess the HAUCS Path Planning Algorithm (HPP). Its performance is compared with the Google Linear Optimization Package (GLOP) and a Graph Attention Model (AM) for routing problems. GLOP is the most efficient solver for 50 to 200 ponds at the expense of long run times, while HPP outperforms the other methods in solution quality and run time for instances larger than 200 ponds. △ Less

Submitted 20 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Truthful AI: Developing and governing AI that does not lie

Authors: Owain Evans, Owen Cotton-Barratt, Lukas Finnveden, Adam Bales, Avital Balwit, Peter Wills, Luca Righetti, William Saunders

Abstract: In many contexts, lying -- the use of verbal falsehoods to deceive -- is harmful. While lying has traditionally been a human affair, AI systems that make sophisticated verbal statements are becoming increasingly prevalent. This raises the question of how we should limit the harm caused by AI "lies" (i.e. falsehoods that are actively selected for). Human truthfulness is governed by social norms and… ▽ More In many contexts, lying -- the use of verbal falsehoods to deceive -- is harmful. While lying has traditionally been a human affair, AI systems that make sophisticated verbal statements are becoming increasingly prevalent. This raises the question of how we should limit the harm caused by AI "lies" (i.e. falsehoods that are actively selected for). Human truthfulness is governed by social norms and by laws (against defamation, perjury, and fraud). Differences between AI and humans present an opportunity to have more precise standards of truthfulness for AI, and to have these standards rise over time. This could provide significant benefits to public epistemics and the economy, and mitigate risks of worst-case AI futures. Establishing norms or laws of AI truthfulness will require significant work to: (1) identify clear truthfulness standards; (2) create institutions that can judge adherence to those standards; and (3) develop AI systems that are robustly truthful. Our initial proposals for these areas include: (1) a standard of avoiding "negligent falsehoods" (a generalisation of lies that is easier to assess); (2) institutions to evaluate AI systems before and after real-world deployment; and (3) explicitly training AI systems to be truthful via curated datasets and human interaction. A concerning possibility is that evaluation mechanisms for eventual truthfulness standards could be captured by political interests, leading to harmful censorship and propaganda. Avoiding this might take careful attention. And since the scale of AI speech acts might grow dramatically over the coming decades, early truthfulness standards might be particularly important because of the precedents they set. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

ACM Class: I.2.0

Metrics for Graph Comparison: A Practitioner's Guide

Authors: Peter Wills, Francois G. Meyer

Abstract: Comparison of graph structure is a ubiquitous task in data analysis and machine learning, with diverse applications in fields such as neuroscience, cyber security, social network analysis, and bioinformatics, among others. Discovery and comparison of structures such as modular communities, rich clubs, hubs, and trees in data in these fields yields insight into the generative mechanisms and functio… ▽ More Comparison of graph structure is a ubiquitous task in data analysis and machine learning, with diverse applications in fields such as neuroscience, cyber security, social network analysis, and bioinformatics, among others. Discovery and comparison of structures such as modular communities, rich clubs, hubs, and trees in data in these fields yields insight into the generative mechanisms and functional properties of the graph. Often, two graphs are compared via a pairwise distance measure, with a small distance indicating structural similarity and vice versa. Common choices include spectral distances (also known as $λ$ distances) and distances based on node affinities. However, there has of yet been no comparative study of the efficacy of these distance measures in discerning between common graph topologies and different structural scales. In this work, we compare commonly used graph metrics and distance measures, and demonstrate their ability to discern between common topological features found in both random graph models and empirical datasets. We put forward a multi-scale picture of graph structure, in which the effect of global and local structure upon the distance measures is considered. We make recommendations on the applicability of different distance measures to empirical graph data problem based on this multi-scale view. Finally, we introduce the Python library NetComp which implements the graph distances used in this work. △ Less

Submitted 16 December, 2019; v1 submitted 15 April, 2019; originally announced April 2019.

Detecting Topological Changes in Dynamic Community Networks

Authors: Peter Wills, Francois G. Meyer

Abstract: The study of time-varying (dynamic) networks (graphs) is of fundamental importance for computer network analytics. Several methods have been proposed to detect the effect of significant structural changes in a time series of graphs. The main contribution of this work is a detailed analysis of a dynamic community graph model. This model is formed by adding new vertices, and randomly attaching them… ▽ More The study of time-varying (dynamic) networks (graphs) is of fundamental importance for computer network analytics. Several methods have been proposed to detect the effect of significant structural changes in a time series of graphs. The main contribution of this work is a detailed analysis of a dynamic community graph model. This model is formed by adding new vertices, and randomly attaching them to the existing nodes. It is a dynamic extension of the well-known stochastic blockmodel. The goal of the work is to detect the time at which the graph dynamics switches from a normal evolution -- where balanced communities grow at the same rate -- to an abnormal behavior -- where communities start merging. In order to circumvent the problem of decomposing each graph into communities, we use a metric to quantify changes in the graph topology as a function of time. The detection of anomalies becomes one of testing the hypothesis that the graph is undergoing a significant structural change. In addition the the theoretical analysis of the test statistic, we perform Monte Carlo simulations of our dynamic graph model to demonstrate that our test can detect changes in graph topology. △ Less

Submitted 23 July, 2017; originally announced July 2017.