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.

Large generative models are widely viewed as the most promising path to general (human-level) artificial intelligence and attract investment in the billions of dollars. The present enthusiasm notwithstanding, a chorus of ranking Chinese scientists regard this singular approach to AGI as ill-advised. This report documents these critiques in China’s research, public statements, and government planning, while pointing to additional, pragmatic reasons for China’s pursuit of a diversified research portfolio.

Maintaining U.S. technological leadership in the years ahead will require policymakers to promote competition in the AI market and prevent industry leaders from wielding their power in harmful ways. This brief examines trends in U.S. mergers and acquisitions of artificial intelligence companies. The authors found that AI-related M&A deals have grown significantly over the last decade, with large U.S. tech companies being the most prolific acquirers of AI firms.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences is among the most important S&T organizations in the world and plays a key role in advancing Beijing’s S&T objectives. This report provides an in-depth look into the organization and its various functions within China’s S&T ecosystem, including advancing S&T research, fostering the commercialization of critical and emerging technologies, and contributing to S&T policymaking.

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.

A core question in policy debates around artificial intelligence is whether federal agencies can use their existing authorities to govern AI or if the government needs new legal powers to manage the technology. The authors argue that relying on existing authorities is the most effective approach to promoting the safe development and deployment of AI systems, at least in the near term. This report outlines a process for identifying existing legal authorities that could apply to AI and highlights areas where additional legislative or regulatory action may be needed.

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

How to govern artificial intelligence is a concern that is rightfully top of mind for lawmakers and policymakers.To govern AI effectively, regulators must 1) know the terrain of AI risk and harm by tracking incidents and collecting data; 2) develop their own AI literacy and build better public understanding of the benefits and risks; and 3) preserve adaptability and agility by developing policies that can be updated as AI evolves.