Skip to content

Main Insight

The Future Society contributed to Partnership on AI’s risk mitigation strategies for the open foundation model value chain, which identify interventions for the range of actors involved in building and operationalizing AI systems.

Guidance on Risk Mitigation for the Open Foundation Model Value Chain

August 30, 2024

This summer, Partnership on AI (PAI) published risk mitigation strategies for the open foundation model value chain. This effort provides practical guidance for managing risks associated with foundation models that have openly available model weights. The Future Society is proud to have contributed to this effort, as part of our work to inform pragmatic measures, practices, and precautions for foundation model developers to address their downstream risks.

These guidelines were created from a workshop co-hosted by PAI and GitHub in San Francisco in April 2024, convening experts from leading AI companies, academia, and civil society. Our Director of Global AI Governance Yolanda Lannquist shared insights regarding the misuse of open foundation models, where downstream actors can fine-tune the models and circumvent safety guardrails put in place by the original developers. More details about the workshop and a list of participants are here.

For policymakers navigating the complexities of governing open foundation models, it is crucial to balance the numerous benefits of openness with the need for safe and responsible AI development and use. The value-chain perspective is indispensable as it addresses the diverse roles and responsibilities of actors involved in building and operationalizing AI systems—including model developers, compute and cloud providers, data providers, model adapters, hosting services, and application developers. It helps identify where interventions can make a difference and considers the specific contexts and environments in which these systems operate.

Looking ahead, significant work remains to define and reach broad international consensus on specific capability and risk thresholds for open—as well as closed—foundation models. These thresholds will be essential for identifying categories of models that require additional evaluation, oversight, and potential restrictions on their release. Similarly, there is a need for continued exploration of accountability and transparency mechanisms that apply to providers of all foundation models, regardless of whether they are “open” or not. We look forward to future collaborations towards a common goal of ensuring the responsible development, release, and use of foundation models.

Banner image generated using artificial intelligence.

Team members

Related resources

How To Make International AI Verification a Reality

How To Make International AI Verification a Reality

Countries outside the U.S.–China AI race can build the verification technologies needed to make an international agreement to slow AI development enforceable. This memo suggests research priorities.

What compute on European soil might buy Europe and what it depends on

What compute on European soil might buy Europe and what it depends on

Across Europe, there is growing appetite for locating large compute capacity at home. This post maps what the benefits' proponents claim such a buildout might bring and the key open questions these claims stand or fall on.

Buyer Beware: What AI-Enabled Weapons in Africa Reveal About Verification

Buyer Beware: What AI-Enabled Weapons in Africa Reveal About Verification

AI rules cannot reliably protect people when compliance cannot be checked. In a new CIGI policy brief co-authored by George Gor (TFS) and Kofi Yeboah (Mozilla), AI-enabled weapons in Africa serve as a case study of how procurement and regional verification can test supplier claims, reduce risks to civilians and...

The Case for Cross-Border AI Incident Infrastructure

The Case for Cross-Border AI Incident Infrastructure

AI incidents are scaling fast, and coordinated global governance is lagging behind. This report proposes addressing this challenge through the development of internationally-distributed incident management infrastructure. Our recommendations aim to enable governments, multilateral bodies, and frontier AI companies to jointly detect, prepare for, and respond to AI incidents across jurisdictions.

Determining the State of the Art in General-Purpose AI Risk Management: From Code to Practice

Determining the State of the Art in General-Purpose AI Risk Management: From Code to Practice

The EU's AI Act and Code of Practice requires providers of the most advanced AI models to meet the ‘state of the art’ (SOTA) in safety and security. In a new policy memo, we argue that SOTA is best understood as a process-driven concept, advanced by the broader expert ecosystem.

EU AI Act meets AI Agents

EU AI Act meets AI Agents

Highlights from Tech Policy Press article “The EU AI Act is Not Ready for Agents,” examining how the EU AI Act applies to AI agents and governance challenges.