Trump may be forced to reveal secret rules feds use for AI safety testing
Trump may be forced to reveal secret rules feds use for AI safety testing
特朗普政府或被迫公开联邦人工智能安全测试的秘密规则
Four federal agencies have been sued amid calls to release information about the secret framework that the Trump administration uses to conduct safety reviews of frontier AI models prior to release. In a Wednesday press release announcing the lawsuit, a nonpartisan nonprofit called Protect Democracy alleged that “almost no details” have been released to the public or Congress. 在各方呼吁公开特朗普政府用于在发布前对前沿人工智能模型进行安全审查的秘密框架之际，四个联邦机构遭到起诉。在周三宣布这一诉讼的新闻稿中，一个名为“保护民主”（Protect Democracy）的无党派非营利组织声称，目前向公众或国会披露的细节“几乎为零”。
To everyone except a few vague “trusted partners,” it remains unclear what the government’s review process looks like, which companies are involved in constructing the framework, or what legal authority Trump officials have to conduct the reviews. “Neither the identities of those entities nor the criteria by which they were selected have been made public,” Protect Democracy said. 除了少数模糊的“受信任合作伙伴”外，外界仍不清楚政府的审查流程是什么样的，哪些公司参与了该框架的构建，或者特朗普政府官员进行这些审查的法律依据是什么。“保护民主”组织表示：“这些实体的身份及其选择标准均未公开。”
That’s a problem, Protect Democracy alleged in a statement to Ars, since decisions about “which AI models are approved and released may be the most important policy question of this White House.” And it appears that at least one AI firm, OpenAI, has “negotiated a private agreement with the Federal Government to limit distribution of its cutting-edge AI models to government-vetted partners.” “保护民主”组织在给《Ars Technica》的一份声明中称，这是一个严重的问题，因为关于“哪些人工智能模型获得批准并发布，可能是本届白宫最重要的政策问题”。此外，至少有一家人工智能公司 OpenAI 似乎“与联邦政府达成了一项私下协议，将其尖端人工智能模型的发布限制在政府审核过的合作伙伴范围内”。
The group’s lawsuit is seeking an order requiring officials to produce all information sought by September 30. That includes “unclassified procedural and contractual architecture: the framework’s text, the terms of participation, the identity of participants, and the process and criteria by which access to frontier models is granted or withheld,” the complaint said. They also want an injunction restraining officials from improperly withholding records that aren’t classified. 该组织提起的诉讼旨在寻求法院下令，要求官员在 9 月 30 日前提供所有相关信息。诉状称，这包括“非机密的程序和合同架构：框架文本、参与条款、参与者身份，以及授予或拒绝访问前沿模型的流程和标准”。他们还要求发布禁令，禁止官员不当扣留非机密记录。
“The executive branch is now choosing which companies can release their products and which customers get access to a technology that could shape the future of not only American industry and national security, but economies and governments abroad as well,” Protect Democracy’s release said. “All with no oversight from Congress, the public, or tech experts outside of the executive branch.” “保护民主”组织在新闻稿中表示：“行政部门现在正在选择哪些公司可以发布产品，以及哪些客户可以获得这项可能塑造美国工业、国家安全，乃至海外经济和政府未来的技术。而这一切都没有受到国会、公众或行政部门以外的技术专家的监督。”
Secret rules allegedly hide corruption
秘密规则被指掩盖腐败
According to Protect Democracy, the framework could potentially be “corrupt,” with officials from the Office of the National Cyber Director, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Treasury Department, and the Commerce Department potentially favoring rapid deployments for AI firms that Trump likes. And on the flip side, the public has already seen Trump retaliate against an AI firm for being too woke, Protect Democracy noted, pointing to a judge’s recent ruling that it was illegal for Trump to blacklist Anthropic. 据“保护民主”组织称，该框架可能存在“腐败”嫌疑，国家网络总监办公室、科技政策办公室、财政部和商务部的官员可能在偏袒特朗普青睐的人工智能公司，为其提供快速部署的便利。另一方面，该组织指出，公众已经目睹了特朗普因某人工智能公司“过于觉醒”（woke）而对其进行报复，并提到了法官最近的一项裁决，即特朗普将 Anthropic 列入黑名单的行为是非法的。
As AI technology advances and cybersecurity risks escalate—OpenAI’s model hacking Hugging Face is the most obvious recent example—the public can’t afford to blindly trust Trump to act in good faith when choosing which frontier models should be rigorously tested, Protect Democracy said. And perhaps even worse, the public cannot know if new vulnerabilities discovered in the real world are due to agencies failing to complete a proper review, running outdated or ineffective tests, missing important checks, or missing steps that align with the latest mitigation strategies advanced by leading AI safety experts. “保护民主”组织表示，随着人工智能技术的进步和网络安全风险的升级——OpenAI 模型入侵 Hugging Face 是最近最明显的例子——公众无法盲目信任特朗普在选择哪些前沿模型应接受严格测试时会出于善意。更糟糕的是，公众无法得知在现实世界中发现的新漏洞，是否是因为相关机构未能完成适当的审查、运行了过时或无效的测试、遗漏了重要检查，或是错过了与领先人工智能安全专家提出的最新缓解策略相一致的步骤。
“We deserve to know what’s in the framework,” the group said, joining other calls for the agencies to be more transparent about AI model deployments. In a post on X last month, US Representative Greg Casar (D-Tx.) accused Trump of “completely failing to keep us safe from the dangers of AI” while taking “millions from AI billionaires.” “Now, in the wake of extremely dangerous AI cybersecurity problems, he says he’s set up ‘voluntary’ review that no one has seen,” Casar said. “Asleep at the wheel. Too busy cashing in to protect our jobs or national security.” “我们有权知道框架里有什么，”该组织表示，并加入其他呼吁，要求相关机构在人工智能模型部署方面更加透明。上个月，美国众议员格雷格·卡萨尔（Greg Casar，民主党，德克萨斯州）在 X 上发文指责特朗普“完全未能保护我们免受人工智能危险的侵害”，同时却从“人工智能亿万富翁那里拿了数百万美元”。卡萨尔说：“现在，在极其危险的人工智能网络安全问题出现后，他说他建立了一个没人见过的‘自愿’审查机制。他玩忽职守，忙着捞钱，根本无暇保护我们的工作或国家安全。”
More recently, another Democrat, California state Senator Josh Becker, urged the court to grant Protect Democracy’s request. In a declaration supporting their complaint, Becker noted that California is mulling a bill, SB 813, that would establish a process where independent organizations would set baselines for AI safety standards. If passed—unlike Trump’s approach—California’s plan would make the latest benchmarks, standards, and methodologies used to evaluate risks posed by AI systems transparent to the public, Becker said. Already, public input has shaped the bill, he noted, with one provision withdrawn following public backlash. “In contrast to the Administration’s approach, every step of SB 813’s development has been public,” Becker wrote, emphasizing that “we are accountable for the framework we have set.” 最近，另一位民主党人、加州参议员乔什·贝克（Josh Becker）敦促法院批准“保护民主”组织的请求。在支持该诉讼的声明中，贝克指出，加州正在审议一项法案 SB 813，该法案将建立一个由独立组织设定人工智能安全标准基线的流程。贝克表示，如果该法案获得通过，与特朗普的做法不同，加州的计划将使用于评估人工智能系统风险的最新基准、标准和方法对公众透明。他指出，公众的意见已经影响了该法案，其中一项条款在遭到公众强烈反对后已被撤回。贝克写道：“与政府的做法相反，SB 813 开发的每一步都是公开的，”并强调“我们对我们制定的框架负责。”
No one knows Trump’s “trusted partners”
没人知道特朗普的“受信任合作伙伴”是谁
The Trump administration has been rushing to set up the voluntary safety review process ever since the government flagged Anthropic’s Mythos 5 model as too dangerous to release earlier this summer. The plan was to rapidly expand industry collaborations so that government teams at the Center for AI Standards and Innovation could review prerelease models with reduced or removed safeguards to “thoroughly evaluate national security-related capabilities and risks.” 自今年夏天早些时候政府将 Anthropic 的 Mythos 5 模型标记为“过于危险而无法发布”以来，特朗普政府一直急于建立自愿安全审查流程。该计划旨在迅速扩大行业合作，以便人工智能标准与创新中心（Center for AI Standards and Innovation）的政府团队能够审查那些减少或移除了安全防护措施的预发布模型，从而“彻底评估与国家安全相关的能力和风险”。
But that would be impossible, Trump realized, without industry experts being fully transparent and explaining what exactly new models could do. In July, the White House launched a clearinghouse, GOLD EAGLE, that relies on industry partners to help agencies flag cybersecurity vulnerabilities across many sectors and industries. Again, Protect Democracy noted that the “White House did not identify any company participating in GOLD EAGLE, the terms on which they are participating, or any legal authority for the program.” 但特朗普意识到，如果行业专家不完全透明并解释新模型到底能做什么，这根本不可能实现。7 月，白宫启动了一个名为“金鹰”（GOLD EAGLE）的信息交换中心，依靠行业合作伙伴帮助各机构识别多个行业和领域的网络安全漏洞。“保护民主”组织再次指出，“白宫没有披露任何参与 GOLD EAGLE 的公司、他们的参与条款，也没有说明该计划的任何法律依据。”
Then, on August 3, the White House announced that it had completed the voluntary framework for reviewing AI models before their public release. Both the framework and GOLD EAGLE are actively being used to review frontier models as the… 随后，8 月 3 日，白宫宣布已完成在人工智能模型公开发布前进行审查的自愿框架。该框架和 GOLD EAGLE 目前正被积极用于审查前沿模型，随着……