Pitfalls of Evidence-Based AI Policy

Nations across the world are working to govern AI. However, from a technical perspective, the best way to do this is not yet clear. Meanwhile, recent debates over AI regulation have led to calls for “evidence-based AI policy” which emphasize holding regulatory action to a high evidentiary standard. Evidence is of irreplaceable value to policymaking. However, holding regulatory action to too high an evidentiary standard can lead to systematic neglect of certain risks. In historical policy debates (e.g., over tobacco ca. 1965 and fossil fuels ca. 1990) “evidence-based policy” rhetoric is also a well-precedented strategy to downplay the urgency of action, delay regulation, and protect industry interests. Here, we argue that if the goal is evidence-based AI policy, the first regulatory objective must be to actively facilitate the process of identifying, studying, and deliberating about AI risks. We discuss a set of 16 regulatory goals to facilitate this and show that the EU, UK, USA, Brazil, Canada, and China all have substantial opportunities to adopt further evidence-seeking policies.