There is strong agreement that generative AI should be regulated, but strong disagreement on how to approach regulation. While some argue that AI regulation should mostly rely on extensions of existing laws, others argue that entirely new laws and regulations are needed to ensure that generative AI benefits society. In this position paper, we argue that the debates on generative AI regulation can be informed by evidence on social media regulation. For example, AI companies have faced allegations of political bias which resemble the allegations social media companies have faced. First, we compare and contrast the affordances of generative AI and social media to highlight their similarities and differences. Then, we discuss four specific policy recommendations based on the evolution of social media and their regulation: (1) counter bias and perceptions thereof (e.g., via transparency, oversight boards, researcher access, democratic input), (2) address specific regulatory concerns (e.g., youth wellbeing, election integrity) and invest in trust and safety, (3) promote computational social science research, and (4) take on a more global perspective. Applying lessons learnt from social media regulation to generative AI regulation can save effort and time, and prevent avoidable mistakes.

The Machine Learning (ML) community has wit- nessed explosive growth, with millions of ML models being published on the Web. Reusing ML model components has been prevalent nowadays. Developers are often required to choose a license to publish and govern the use of their models. Popular options include Apache-2.0, OpenRAIL (Responsible AI Licenses), Creative Commons Licenses (CCs), Llama2, and GPL-3.0. Currently, no standard or widely accepted best practices ex- ist for model licensing. But does this lack of standardization lead to undesired consequences? Our answer is Yes. After reviewing the clauses of the most widely adopted licenses, we take the position that current model licensing practices are dragging us into a quagmire of legal noncom- pliance. To support this view, we explore the cur- rent practices in model licensing and highlight the differences between various model licenses. We then identify potential legal risks associated with these licenses and demonstrate these risks using examples from real-world repositories on Hug- ging Face. To foster a more standardized future for model licensing, we also propose a new draft of model licenses, ModelGo Licenses (MGLs), to address these challenges and promote better compliance. https://www.modelgo.li/

The rapid deployment of autonomous AI agents creates urgent challenges in the areas of authorization, accountability, and access control in task delegation. This position paper argues that authenticated and auditable delegation of authority to AI agents is a critical component of mitigating practical risks and unlocking the value of agents. To support this argument, we examine how existing web authentication and authorization protocols, as well as natural language interfaces to common access control mechanisms, can be extended to enable secure authenticated delegation of authority to AI agents. By extending OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect with agent-specific credentials and using transparent translation of natural language permissions into robust scoping rules across diverse interaction modalities, we outline how authenticated delegation can be achieved to enable clear chains of accountability while maintaining compatibility with established authentication and web infrastructure for immediate compatibility. This work contributes to ensuring that agentic AI systems perform only appropriate actions. It argues for prioritizing delegation infrastructure as a key component of AI agent governance and provides a roadmap for achieving this.

Current efforts in AI safety prioritize filtering harmful content, preventing manipulation of human behavior, and eliminating existential risks in cybersecurity or biosecurity. While pressing, this narrow focus overlooks critical human-centric considerations that shape the long-term trajectory of a society. In this position paper, we identify the risks of overlooking the impact of AI on the future of work and recommend comprehensive transition support towards the evolution of meaningful labor with human agency. Through the lens of economic theories, we highlight the intertemporal impacts of AI on human livelihood and the structural changes in labor markets that exacerbate income inequality. Additionally, the closed-source approach of major stakeholders in AI development resembles rent-seeking behavior through exploiting resources, breeding mediocrity in creative labor, and monopolizing innovation. To address this, we argue in favor of a robust international copyright anatomy supported by implementing collective licensing that ensures fair compensation mechanisms for using data to train AI models. We strongly recommend a pro-worker framework of global AI governance to enhance shared prosperity and economic justice while reducing technical debt.