Eq. 3 has been derived in the appendix since the heteroscedastic case was not considered in Pearce et al.

Recent policy proposals aim to improve the safety of general-purpose AI, but there is little understanding of the efficacy of different regulatory approaches to AI safety. We present a strategic model that explores the interactions between the regulator, the general-purpose AI technology creators, and domain specialists--those who adapt the AI for specific applications. Our analysis examines how different regulatory measures, targeting different parts of the development chain, affect the outcome of the development process. In particular, we assume AI technology is described by two key attributes: safety and performance. The regulator first sets a minimum safety standard that applies to one or both players, with strict penalties for non-compliance. The general-purpose creator then develops the technology, establishing its initial safety and performance levels. Next, domain specialists refine the AI for their specific use cases, and the resulting revenue is distributed between the specialist and generalist through an ex-ante bargaining process. Our analysis of this game reveals two key insights: First, weak safety regulation imposed only on the domain specialists can backfire. While it might seem logical to regulate use cases (as opposed to the general-purpose technology), our analysis shows that weak regulations targeting domain specialists alone can unintentionally reduce safety. This effect persists across a wide range of settings. Second, in sharp contrast to the previous finding, we observe that stronger, well-placed regulation can in fact benefit all players subjected to it. When regulators impose appropriate safety standards on both AI creators and domain specialists, the regulation functions as a commitment mechanism, leading to safety and performance gains, surpassing what is achieved under no regulation or regulating one player only.

Major advances in Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly take the form of developing and releasing general-purpose models. These models are designed to be adapted by other businesses and agencies to perform a particular, domain-specific function. This process has become known as adaptation or fine-tuning. This paper offers a model of the fine-tuning process where a Generalist brings the technological product (here an ML model) to a certain level of performance, and one or more Domain-specialist(s) adapts it for use in a particular domain. Both entities are profit-seeking and incur costs when they invest in the technology, and they must reach a bargaining agreement on how to share the revenue for the technology to reach the market. For a relatively general class of cost and revenue functions, we characterize the conditions under which the fine-tuning game yields a profit-sharing solution. We observe that any potential domain-specialization will either contribute, free-ride, or abstain in their uptake of the technology, and we provide conditions yielding these different strategies. We show how methods based on bargaining solutions and sub-game perfect equilibria provide insights into the strategic behavior of firms in these types of interactions, and we find that profit-sharing can still arise even when one firm has significantly higher costs than another. We also provide methods for identifying Pareto-optimal bargaining arrangements for a general set of utility functions.

Artificial Intelligence is playing an ever more important role in business. Every year, we see a fresh batch of executives implement AI-based solutions across both products and processes. But do you know how they do it? And if you were to try the same, would you know how to achieve the best results? By the end of this article, you will -- you'll see precisely how you can use AI to benefit your entire operation. As is crucial with everything AI, let's start by grounding ourselves in data.