This report presents an analytic approach to help U.S. policymakers deconstruct artificial intelligence governance proposals by identifying their underlying assumptions, which are the foundational elements that facilitate the success of a proposal. By applying the approach to five U.S.-based AI governance proposals from industry, academia, and civil society, as well as state and federal government, this report demonstrates how identifying assumptions can help policymakers make informed, flexible decisions about AI under uncertainty.

As artificial intelligence systems are deployed and affect more aspects of daily life, effective risk mitigation becomes imperative to prevent harm. This report analyzes AI incidents to improve our understanding of how risks from AI materialize in practice. By identifying six mechanisms of harm, it sheds light on the different pathways to harm, and on the variety of mitigation strategies needed to address them.

This report analyzes over 250 scientific publications that use open language models in ways that require access to model weights and derives a taxonomy of use cases that open weights enable. The authors identified a diverse range of seven open-weight use cases that allow researchers to investigate a wider scope of questions, explore more avenues of experimentation, and implement a larger set of techniques.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping military decision-making. This concise overview explores how AI-enabled systems can enhance situational awareness and accelerate critical operational decisions—even in high-pressure, dynamic environments. Yet, it also highlights the essential need for clear operational scopes, robust training, and vigilant risk mitigation to counter the inherent challenges of using AI, such as data biases and automation pitfalls. This report offers a balanced framework to help military leaders integrate AI responsibly and effectively.

As new advanced AI systems roll out, there is widespread disagreement about malicious use risks. Are bad actors likely to misuse these tools for harm? This report presents a simple framework to guide the questions researchers ask—and the tools they use—to evaluate the likelihood of malicious use.

In response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy's request for input on an AI Action Plan, CSET provides key recommendations for advancing AI research, ensuring U.S. competitiveness, and maximizing benefits while mitigating risks. Our response highlights policies to strengthen the AI workforce, secure technology from illicit transfers, and foster an open and competitive AI ecosystem.

Explainability and interpretability are often cited as key characteristics of trustworthy AI systems, but it is unclear how they are evaluated in practice. This report examines how researchers evaluate their explainability and interpretability claims in the context of AI-enabled recommendation systems and offers considerations for policymakers seeking to support AI evaluations.

This follow-up report builds on the foundational framework presented in the March 2024 CSET issue brief, “An Argument for Hybrid AI Incident Reporting,” by identifying key components of AI incidents that should be documented within a mandatory reporting regime. Designed to complement and operationalize our original framework, this report promotes the implementation of such a regime. By providing guidance on these critical elements, the report fosters consistent and comprehensive incident reporting, advancing efforts to document and address AI-related harms.

The U.S. Army’s 18th Airborne Corps can now target artillery just as efficiently as the best unit in recent American history—and it can do so with two thousand fewer servicemembers. This report presents a case study of how the 18th Airborne partnered with tech companies to develop, prototype, and operationalize software and artificial intelligence for clear military advantage. The lessons learned form recommendations to the U.S. Department of Defense as it pushes to further develop and adopt AI and other new technologies.

CSET submitted the following comment in response to a Request for Information (RFI) from the Department of Commerce regarding 89 FR 27411.