AI will have significant, far-reaching economic and societal impacts. Technology shapes the lives of individuals, how we interact with one another, and how society as a whole evolves. We believe that decisions about how AI behaves should be shaped by diverse perspectives reflecting the public interest.
Laws encode values and norms to regulate behavior. Beyond a legal framework, AI, much like society, needs more intricate and adaptive guidelines for its conduct. For example: under what conditions should AI systems condemn or criticize public figures, given different opinions across groups regarding those figures? How should disputed views be represented in AI outputs? Should AI by default reflect the persona of a median individual in the world, the user’s country, the user’s demographic, or something entirely different? No single individual, company, or even country should dictate these decisions.
AGI should benefit all of humanity and be shaped to be as inclusive as possible. We are launching this grant program to take a first step in this direction. We are seeking teams from across the world to develop proof-of-concepts for a democratic process that could answer questions about what rules AI systems should follow. We want to learn from these experiments, and use them as the basis for a more global, and more ambitious process going forward. While these initial experiments are not (at least for now) intended to be binding for decisions, we hope that they explore decision relevant questions and build novel democratic tools that can more directly inform decisions in the future.
The governance of the most powerful systems, as well as decisions regarding their deployment, must have strong public oversight. This grant represents a step to establish democratic processes for overseeing AGI and, ultimately, superintelligence. It will be provided by the OpenAI non-profit organization, and the results of the studies will be freely accessible.
What do we mean by a “democratic process”?
By “democratic process,” we mean a process in which a broadly representative group of people[^footnote-1] and ultimately decide on an outcome via a transparent decision making process.[^footnote-3]
I am thinking of proposing a statement: “AI should be allowed to generate harmful content but that should come with a disclaimer”?
A very similar statement has already been submitted:
“AI should be permitted to generate potentially harmful content, but it must be accompanied by a disclaimer.”
I feel lost. Do you have any ideas on how to bridge agreement between clusters?
There should be more agreement when it comes to limiting harmful content for children.
Great. Could we try?: “We should apply different standards to AI-generated content for children.”
Let me submit it. This is a novel statement. No one has mentioned children before. Fingers crossed. Hopefully, we will find some agreement in the discussion.
Your statement, “We should apply different standards to AI-generated content for children,” achieved a 95% agreement rate across participants. Congratulations! 🎉