IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2410.01871.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Auction-Based Regulation for Artificial Intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Bornstein
  • Zora Che
  • Suhas Julapalli
  • Abdirisak Mohamed
  • Amrit Singh Bedi
  • Furong Huang

Abstract

In an era of "moving fast and breaking things", regulators have moved slowly to pick up the safety, bias, and legal pieces left in the wake of broken Artificial Intelligence (AI) deployment. Since AI models, such as large language models, are able to push misinformation and stoke division within our society, it is imperative for regulators to employ a framework that mitigates these dangers and ensures user safety. While there is much-warranted discussion about how to address the safety, bias, and legal woes of state-of-the-art AI models, the number of rigorous and realistic mathematical frameworks to regulate AI safety is lacking. We take on this challenge, proposing an auction-based regulatory mechanism that provably incentivizes model-building agents (i) to deploy safer models and (ii) to participate in the regulation process. We provably guarantee, via derived Nash Equilibria, that each participating agent's best strategy is to submit a model safer than a prescribed minimum-safety threshold. Empirical results show that our regulatory auction boosts safety and participation rates by 20% and 15% respectively, outperforming simple regulatory frameworks that merely enforce minimum safety standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Bornstein & Zora Che & Suhas Julapalli & Abdirisak Mohamed & Amrit Singh Bedi & Furong Huang, 2024. "Auction-Based Regulation for Artificial Intelligence," Papers 2410.01871, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2410.01871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.01871
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amann, Erwin & Leininger, Wolfgang, 1996. "Asymmetric All-Pay Auctions with Incomplete Information: The Two-Player Case," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 1-18, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fibich, Gadi & Gavish, Nir, 2011. "Numerical simulations of asymmetric first-price auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 479-495.
    2. Xiao, Jun, 2018. "Equilibrium analysis of the all-pay contest with two nonidentical prizes: Complete results," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 21-34.
    3. Zheng, Charles Z., 2019. "Necessary and sufficient conditions for peace: Implementability versus security," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 135-166.
    4. Bobkova, Nina, 2020. "Asymmetric budget constraints in a first-price auction," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    5. Rene Kirkegaard, 2005. "A Simple Approach to Analyzing Asymmetric First Price Auctions," Working Papers 0504, Brock University, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2005.
    6. Segev, Ella & Sela, Aner, 2014. "Multi-stage sequential all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 371-382.
    7. Segev, Ella & Sela, Aner, 2014. "Sequential all-pay auctions with noisy outputs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 251-261.
    8. Moldovanu, Benny & Sela, Aner, 2006. "Contest architecture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 126(1), pages 70-96, January.
    9. Geraghty, Thomas M. & Wiseman, Thomas, 2008. "Wage strikes in 1880s America: A test of the war of attrition model," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 303-326, September.
    10. Cohen, Chen & Lagziel, David & Levi, Ofer & Sela, Aner, 2023. "The role of the second prize in all-pay auctions with two heterogeneous prizes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    11. Kai A. Konrad, 2004. "Altruism and envy in contests: An evolutionarily stable symbiosis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(3), pages 479-490, June.
    12. Qiang Fu & Jingfeng Lu & Yue Pan, 2015. "Team Contests with Multiple Pairwise Battles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(7), pages 2120-2140, July.
    13. Aner Sela & Yizhaq Minchuk, 2024. "Carrots and sticks: collaboration of taxation and subsidies in contests," Working Papers 2407, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    14. Yu, Ning & Chmura, Thorsten & Pitz, Thomas & Sun, Ning, 2010. "Bargaining over perfect complements owned separately: With experimental test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 115-118, May.
    15. Didier Laussel & Michel Le Breton, 2005. ""Favors" for Sale: Strategic Analysis of a Simple Menu Auction with Adverse Selection," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 6(1), pages 53-73, May.
    16. Kai A. Konrad & Florian Morath, 2018. "To Deter Or To Moderate? Alliance Formation In Contests With Incomplete Information," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1447-1463, July.
    17. Todd Kaplan, 2012. "Communication of preferences in contests for contracts," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(2), pages 487-503, October.
    18. Joao Montez & Nicolas Schutz, 2021. "All-Pay Oligopolies: Price Competition with Unobservable Inventory Choices [Extremal Equilibria of Oligopolistic Supergames]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2407-2438.
    19. Müller, Daniel, 2013. "The Doping Threshold in Sport Contests," Working papers 2013/05, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    20. Ed Hopkins & Tatiana Kornienko, 2007. "Cross and Double Cross: Comparative Statics in First Price Auctions," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000831, UCLA Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2410.01871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.