Do AI Companies Make Good on Voluntary Commitments to the White House?
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866918146976251904 |
|---|---|
| author | Wang, Jennifer Huang, Kayla Klyman, Kevin Bommasani, Rishi |
| author_facet | Wang, Jennifer Huang, Kayla Klyman, Kevin Bommasani, Rishi |
| contents | Voluntary commitments are central to international AI governance, as demonstrated by recent voluntary guidelines from the White House to the G7, from Bletchley Park to Seoul. How do major AI companies make good on their commitments? We score companies based on their publicly disclosed behavior by developing a detailed rubric based on their eight voluntary commitments to the White House in 2023. We find significant heterogeneity: while the highest-scoring company (OpenAI) scores a 83% overall on our rubric, the average score across all companies is just 53%. The companies demonstrate systemically poor performance for their commitment to model weight security with an average score of 17%: 11 of the 16 companies receive 0% for this commitment. Our analysis highlights a clear structural shortcoming that future AI governance initiatives should correct: when companies make public commitments, they should proactively disclose how they meet their commitments to provide accountability, and these disclosures should be verifiable. To advance policymaking on corporate AI governance, we provide three directed recommendations that address underspecified commitments, the role of complex AI supply chains, and public transparency that could be applied towards AI governance initiatives worldwide. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2508_08345 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Do AI Companies Make Good on Voluntary Commitments to the White House? Wang, Jennifer Huang, Kayla Klyman, Kevin Bommasani, Rishi Computers and Society Artificial Intelligence Voluntary commitments are central to international AI governance, as demonstrated by recent voluntary guidelines from the White House to the G7, from Bletchley Park to Seoul. How do major AI companies make good on their commitments? We score companies based on their publicly disclosed behavior by developing a detailed rubric based on their eight voluntary commitments to the White House in 2023. We find significant heterogeneity: while the highest-scoring company (OpenAI) scores a 83% overall on our rubric, the average score across all companies is just 53%. The companies demonstrate systemically poor performance for their commitment to model weight security with an average score of 17%: 11 of the 16 companies receive 0% for this commitment. Our analysis highlights a clear structural shortcoming that future AI governance initiatives should correct: when companies make public commitments, they should proactively disclose how they meet their commitments to provide accountability, and these disclosures should be verifiable. To advance policymaking on corporate AI governance, we provide three directed recommendations that address underspecified commitments, the role of complex AI supply chains, and public transparency that could be applied towards AI governance initiatives worldwide. |
| title | Do AI Companies Make Good on Voluntary Commitments to the White House? |
| topic | Computers and Society Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08345 |