This paper presents the latest version of the Global AI Vibrancy Tool (GVT), an interactive suite of visualizations designed to facilitate the comparison of AI vibrancy across 36 countries, using 42 indicators organized into 8 pillars. The tool offers customizable features that allow users to conduct in-depth country-level comparisons and longitudinal analyses of AI-related metrics, all based on publicly available data. By providing a transparent assessment of national progress in AI, it serves the diverse needs of policymakers, industry leaders, researchers, and the general public. Using weights for indicators and pillars developed by AI Index's panel of experts and combined into an index, the Global AI Vibrancy Ranking for 2023 places the United States first by a significant margin, followed by China and the United Kingdom. The ranking also highlights the rise of smaller nations such as Singapore when evaluated on both absolute and per capita bases. The tool offers three sub-indices for evaluating Global AI Vibrancy along different dimensions: the Innovation Index, the Economic Competitiveness Index, and the Policy, Governance, and Public Engagement Index.

Text embedding is becoming an increasingly popular AI methodology, especially among businesses, yet the potential of text embedding models to be biased is not well understood. This paper examines the degree to which a selection of popular text embedding models are biased, particularly along gendered dimensions. More specifically, this paper studies the degree to which these models associate a list of given professions with gendered terms. The analysis reveals that text embedding models are prone to gendered biases but in varying ways. Although there are certain inter-model commonalities, for instance, greater association of professions like nurse, homemaker, and socialite with female identifiers, and greater association of professions like CEO, manager, and boss with male identifiers, not all models make the same gendered associations for each occupation. Furthermore, the magnitude and directionality of bias can also vary on a model-by-model basis and depend on the particular words models are prompted with. This paper demonstrates that gender bias afflicts text embedding models and suggests that businesses using this technology need to be mindful of the specific dimensions of this problem.

The 2024 Index is our most comprehensive to date and arrives at an important moment when AI's influence on society has never been more pronounced. This year, we have broadened our scope to more extensively cover essential trends such as technical advancements in AI, public perceptions of the technology, and the geopolitical dynamics surrounding its development. Featuring more original data than ever before, this edition introduces new estimates on AI training costs, detailed analyses of the responsible AI landscape, and an entirely new chapter dedicated to AI's impact on science and medicine. The AI Index report tracks, collates, distills, and visualizes data related to artificial intelligence (AI). Our mission is to provide unbiased, rigorously vetted, broadly sourced data in order for policymakers, researchers, executives, journalists, and the general public to develop a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the complex field of AI. The AI Index is recognized globally as one of the most credible and authoritative sources for data and insights on artificial intelligence. Previous editions have been cited in major newspapers, including the The New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Guardian, have amassed hundreds of academic citations, and been referenced by high-level policymakers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, among other places. This year's edition surpasses all previous ones in size, scale, and scope, reflecting the growing significance that AI is coming to hold in all of our lives.

Foundation models are critical digital technologies with sweeping societal impact that necessitates transparency. To codify how foundation model developers should provide transparency about the development and deployment of their models, we propose Foundation Model Transparency Reports, drawing upon the transparency reporting practices in social media. While external documentation of societal harms prompted social media transparency reports, our objective is to institutionalize transparency reporting for foundation models while the industry is still nascent. To design our reports, we identify 6 design principles given the successes and shortcomings of social media transparency reporting. To further schematize our reports, we draw upon the 100 transparency indicators from the Foundation Model Transparency Index. Given these indicators, we measure the extent to which they overlap with the transparency requirements included in six prominent government policies (e.g., the EU AI Act, the US Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI). Well-designed transparency reports could reduce compliance costs, in part due to overlapping regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions. We encourage foundation model developers to regularly publish transparency reports, building upon recommendations from the G7 and the White House.

Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for public accountability, scientific innovation, and effective governance. To assess the transparency of the foundation model ecosystem and help improve transparency over time, we introduce the Foundation Model Transparency Index. The Foundation Model Transparency Index specifies 100 fine-grained indicators that comprehensively codify transparency for foundation models, spanning the upstream resources used to build a foundation model (e.g data, labor, compute), details about the model itself (e.g. size, capabilities, risks), and the downstream use (e.g. distribution channels, usage policies, affected geographies). We score 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google, Meta) against the 100 indicators to assess their transparency. To facilitate and standardize assessment, we score developers in relation to their practices for their flagship foundation model (e.g. GPT-4 for OpenAI, PaLM 2 for Google, Llama 2 for Meta). We present 10 top-level findings about the foundation model ecosystem: for example, no developer currently discloses significant information about the downstream impact of its flagship model, such as the number of users, affected market sectors, or how users can seek redress for harm. Overall, the Foundation Model Transparency Index establishes the level of transparency today to drive progress on foundation model governance via industry standards and regulatory intervention.

Welcome to the sixth edition of the AI Index Report! This year, the report introduces more original data than any previous edition, including a new chapter on AI public opinion, a more thorough technical performance chapter, original analysis about large language and multimodal models, detailed trends in global AI legislation records, a study of the environmental impact of AI systems, and more. The AI Index Report tracks, collates, distills, and visualizes data related to artificial intelligence. Our mission is to provide unbiased, rigorously vetted, broadly sourced data in order for policymakers, researchers, executives, journalists, and the general public to develop a more thorough and nuanced understanding of the complex field of AI. The report aims to be the world's most credible and authoritative source for data and insights about AI.