本頁4 分鐘閱讀
概述
If a model crosses a set threshold, the lab commits to adding stronger safeguards, or to not deploying or not training further until those safeguards are in place. These frameworks matter because they are currently the main way the most advanced AI models are governed for catastrophic risk, though most of them are voluntary and written by the labs themselves.
深入探討
Anthropic published the first Responsible Scaling Policy in September 2023. It introduced AI Safety Levels (ASLs), loosely modeled on biosafety levels, where higher levels require stronger security and deployment safeguards. A later version, in October 2024, restated the policy in terms of capability thresholds and required safeguards and described the role of a Responsible Scaling Officer. OpenAI released its Preparedness Framework as a beta in December 2023. It scored risk in tracked categories, originally including CBRN threats, cybersecurity, persuasion and model autonomy. A 2025 revision reorganized it around High and Critical capability thresholds and dropped persuasion as a tracked category. Google DeepMind published its Frontier Safety Framework in May 2024 and has revised it since. It defines Critical Capability Levels (CCLs) that trigger response plans. At the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, 16 companies signed the Frontier AI Safety Commitments. They agreed to publish safety frameworks, set thresholds for intolerable risk, and not develop or deploy a model if its risks could not be kept below those thresholds. Many frameworks were published before the Paris AI Action Summit in February 2025. Critics point to several weaknesses. Labs write their own thresholds and can revise them on their own. Wording such as "meaningful uplift" leaves room for interpretation. External verification is limited, and commercial competition gives labs an incentive to read results generously. A common misconception is that these frameworks are laws. Most are voluntary, although this is changing. California's SB 53 requires large frontier developers to publish such a framework, and the EU's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, a voluntary route to showing compliance with the AI Act, asks signatories to adopt one.
戰略影響
風險與安全
災難性和日常的人工智慧危害都取決於誰了解風險以及誰能夠採取行動。
更明確的決策
民眾和專業素養決定強而有力的安全政策在政治上是否可行。
突破炒作
清晰的解釋可以減少炒作、實驗室公關和模糊道德劇場的影響。
The Future of Frontier AI Safety Frameworks and Responsible Scaling Policies
Frameworks are moving from voluntary pledges toward regulatory expectations. California now requires large frontier developers to publish them, the EU's Code of Practice asks signatories to adopt them, and more jurisdictions may follow. Open questions include who audits compliance, how thresholds get standardized across labs, and whether evaluations can keep up with rapidly improving agentic systems. Independent testing bodies, including government AI institutes, may take on a bigger role in checking lab claims. The central tension will likely remain: labs design the rules they are judged by, which makes transparency and outside scrutiny important.
現實世界的實施
Before release, a lab tests whether a new model gives meaningful uplift to someone trying to acquire biological weapons. If it crosses the threshold, the lab adds stricter misuse filters and security before deployment.
In May 2025, Anthropic said it had activated ASL-3 deployment and security protections for Claude Opus 4 as a precaution, because it could not rule out that the model had reached the relevant capability threshold.
OpenAI's Preparedness Framework directs a Safety Advisory Group to review capability reports and advise leadership on whether safeguards are adequate before a release.
A lab tracking autonomous replication or AI research acceleration runs agentic evaluations. These test whether the model can complete long, multi-step tasks without human help.
風險與防護欄
將存在風險視為科幻小說，同時能力複合。
混淆了表面產品安全與高度自治下的對準。
只給非英語和非專業觀眾留下低品質的資源。
實施路線圖
單獨的產品危害、誤用和失控/失調風險。
詢問哪些證據會改變您對時間表和嚴重性的看法。
比起行銷主張，更喜歡主要來源和具體評估。
確定一條行動路徑：職業、政策、資金或技能——而不僅僅是意識。
不斷探索
Free newsletter
Get the daily AI briefing
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Take the Frontier AI Safety Frameworks and Responsible Scaling Policies quiz
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
常見問題
What is Frontier AI Safety Frameworks and Responsible Scaling Policies?
A frontier AI safety framework, such as a responsible scaling policy, is a published commitment by an AI lab to test its models for dangerous capabilities. If a model crosses a set threshold, the lab commits to adding stronger safeguards, or to not deploying or not training further until those safeguards are in place. These frameworks matter because they are currently the main way the most advanced AI models are governed for catastrophic risk, though most of them are voluntary and written by the labs themselves.
What is the basic logic of a responsible scaling policy?
These frameworks are built on if-then commitments that tie capability thresholds to required safeguards.
Which company introduced AI Safety Levels (ASLs)?
Anthropic's September 2023 Responsible Scaling Policy introduced ASLs, loosely modeled on biosafety levels.
What does Google DeepMind call the thresholds in its Frontier Safety Framework?
DeepMind uses Critical Capability Levels (CCLs), which trigger response plans when they are reached.
What did companies agree to at the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024?
The Frontier AI Safety Commitments were voluntary pledges to publish frameworks and to not proceed if risks could not be kept below the thresholds.
Which category did OpenAI's 2025 Preparedness Framework revision drop as a tracked category?
The revision reorganized the framework around High and Critical thresholds and removed persuasion as a tracked category.
繼續學習
相關指南
為此主題精選的更多指南