WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) launched a Request for Comment on the risks, benefits and potential policy related to advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models with widely available model weights – the core component of AI systems.

These “open-weight” models allow developers to build upon and adapt previous work, broadening AI tools’ availability to small companies, researchers, nonprofits, and individuals. This may accelerate the diffusion of AI’s benefits and the pace of AI safety research, but it may also increase the scale and likelihood of harms from advanced models.

“AI is an accelerator – it has the potential to make people’s existing capabilities better, faster, and stronger. In the right hands, it carries incredible opportunity, but in the wrong hands, it can pose a threat to public safety. That’s why, under President Biden’s leadership and direction, we’re acting quickly and precisely to keep pace with this rapidly evolving technology to ensure safety, while protecting innovation,”said Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “Today, NTIA is inviting public feedback about how widely available access to model weights may impact our society and our national security. This is an important piece of the President’s Executive Order and an early step toward ensuring safety, security, and trust in these systems.”

President Biden’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence directs NTIA to review the risks and benefits of large AI models with widely available weights and develop policy recommendations to maximize those benefits while mitigating the risks.

“Open-weight AI models raise important questions around safety challenges, and opportunities for competition and innovation,” said Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator. “These models can help unleash innovation across communities by making powerful tools accessible, but that same accessibility also poses serious risks. Our Request for Comment will help us chart a policy path to promote both safety and innovation in this important technology.”

The Executive Order directs NTIA to discuss benefits, risks, and policy choices associated with dual-use foundation models, which are powerful models that can be fine-tuned and used for multiple purposes, with widely available model weights. The Request for Comment asks for public feedback about how making model weights and other model components widely available creates benefits or risks to the broader economy, communities, individuals, and to national security.

Model weights reflect distillations of knowledge within AI models and govern how those models behave. Using large amounts of data, machine learning algorithms train a model to recognize patterns and learn appropriate responses. As the model learns, the values of its weights adjust over time to reflect its new knowledge. Ultimately, the training process aims to arrive at a set of weights optimized to produce behavior that fits the developer’s goals. If a person has access to a model’s weights, that person does not need to train the model from scratch. Additionally, that person can more easily fine-tune the model or adapt it towards different goals, unlocking new innovations but also potentially removing safeguards.

The Request for Comment seeks input on a number of issues, including:

  • The varying levels of openness of AI models;
  • The benefits and risks of making model weights widely available compared to the benefits and risks associated with closed models;
  • Innovation, competition, safety, security, trustworthiness, equity, and national security concerns with making AI model weights more or less open; and
  • The role of the U.S. government in guiding, supporting, or restricting the availability of AI model weights.

Comments are due within 30 days of publication of the Request for Comment in the Federal Register. The responses will help inform a report to the President with NTIA’s findings and policy recommendations.

Link to submit comments: Regulations.gov

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Executive summary: NTIA is seeking public comment on the risks, benefits, and potential policy implications of open-weight AI models, which allow developers to build upon and adapt previous work, in order to inform a report to the President with findings and policy recommendations.

Key points:

  1. Open-weight AI models make powerful tools accessible, potentially accelerating innovation and the diffusion of AI's benefits, but also pose risks to public safety and national security.
  2. The Request for Comment seeks input on the varying levels of openness of AI models, and the benefits and risks of making model weights widely available compared to closed models.
  3. The public is asked to comment on innovation, competition, safety, security, trustworthiness, equity, and national security concerns related to the openness of AI model weights.
  4. The role of the U.S. government in guiding, supporting, or restricting the availability of AI model weights is also a topic for public input.
  5. Comments are due within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register and will inform NTIA's report to the President with findings and policy recommendations.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
In my past year as a grantmaker in the global health and wellbeing (GHW) meta space at Open Philanthropy, I've identified some exciting ideas that could fill existing gaps. While these initiatives have significant potential, they require more active development and support to move forward.  The ideas I think could have the highest impact are:  1. Government placements/secondments in key GHW areas (e.g. international development), and 2. Expanded (ultra) high-net-worth ([U]HNW) advising Each of these ideas needs a very specific type of leadership and/or structure. More accessible options I’m excited about — particularly for students or recent graduates — could involve virtual GHW courses or action-focused student groups.  I can’t commit to supporting any particular project based on these ideas ahead of time, because the likelihood of success would heavily depend on details (including the people leading the project). Still, I thought it would be helpful to articulate a few of the ideas I’ve been considering.  I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on these ideas and any other gaps you see in the space! Introduction I’m Mel, a Senior Program Associate at Open Philanthropy, where I lead grantmaking for the Effective Giving and Careers program[1] (you can read more about the program and our current strategy here). Throughout my time in this role, I’ve encountered great ideas, but have also noticed gaps in the space. This post shares a list of projects I’d like to see pursued, and would potentially want to support. These ideas are drawn from existing efforts in other areas (e.g., projects supported by our GCRCB team), suggestions from conversations and materials I’ve engaged with, and my general intuition. They aren’t meant to be a definitive roadmap, but rather a starting point for discussion. At the moment, I don’t have capacity to more actively explore these ideas and find the right founders for related projects. That may change, but for now, I’m interested in