Position: Require Frontier AI Labs To Release Small "Analog" Models
Extracted source text · arXiv 2510.14053
\documentclass{article}
% if you need to pass options to natbib, use, e.g.:
% \PassOptionsToPackage{numbers, compress}{natbib}
% before loading neurips_2025
% The authors should use one of these tracks.
% Before accepting by the NeurIPS conference, select one of the options below.
% 0. "default" for submission
\usepackage[position, final]{neurips_2025}
% the "default" option is equal to the "main" option, which is used for the Main Track with double-blind reviewing.
% 1. "main" option is used for the Main Track
% \usepackage[main]{neurips_2025}
% 2. "position" option is used for the Position Paper Track
% \usepackage[position]{neurips_2025}
% 3. "dandb" option is used for the Datasets & Benchmarks Track
% \usepackage[dandb]{neurips_2025}
% 4. "creativeai" option is used for the Creative AI Track
% \usepackage[creativeai]{neurips_2025}
% 5. "sglblindworkshop" option is used for the Workshop with single-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[sglblindworkshop]{neurips_2025}
% 6. "dblblindworkshop" option is used for the Workshop with double-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[dblblindworkshop]{neurips_2025}
% After being accepted, the authors should add "final" behind the track to compile a camera-ready version.
% 1. Main Track
% \usepackage[main, final]{neurips_2025}
% 2. Position Paper Track
% \usepackage[position, final]{neurips_2025}
% 3. Datasets & Benchmarks Track
% \usepackage[dandb, final]{neurips_2025}
% 4. Creative AI Track
% \usepackage[creativeai, final]{neurips_2025}
% 5. Workshop with single-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[sglblindworkshop, final]{neurips_2025}
% 6. Workshop with double-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[dblblindworkshop, final]{neurips_2025}
% Note. For the workshop paper template, both \title{} and \workshoptitle{} are required, with the former indicating the paper title shown in the title and the latter indicating the workshop title displayed in the footnote.
% For workshops (5., 6.), the authors should add the name of the workshop, "\workshoptitle" command is used to set the workshop title.
% \workshoptitle{WORKSHOP TITLE}
% "preprint" option is used for arXiv or other preprint submissions
% \usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2025}
% to avoid loading the natbib package, add option nonatbib:
% \usepackage[nonatbib]{neurips_2025}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
\usepackage{xcolor} % colors
% The \author macro works with any number of authors. There are two commands
% used to separate the names and addresses of multiple authors: \And and \AND.
%
% Using \And between authors leaves it to LaTeX to determine where to break the
% lines. Using \AND forces a line break at that point. So, if LaTeX puts 3 of 4
% authors names on the first line, and the last on the second line, try using
% \AND instead of \And before the third author name.
\usepackage{graphicx}
\author{
Shriyash Upadhyay \\
Martian \\
\And
Chaithanya Bandi \\
Martian \\
\And
Narmeen Oozeer \\
Martian \\
\And
Philip Quirke\\
Martian \\
}
% Note. For the workshop paper template, both \title{} and \workshoptitle{} are required, with the former indicating the paper title shown in the title and the latter indicating the workshop title displayed in the footnote.
\title{Position: Require Frontier AI Labs To Release Small "Analog" Models}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Recent proposals for regulating frontier AI models have sparked concerns about the cost of safety regulation, and most such regulations have been shelved due to the safety-innovation tradeoff. This paper argues for an alternative regulatory approach that ensures AI safety while actively \textit{promoting} innovation: mandating that large AI laboratories release small, openly accessible ``analog models"—scaled-down versions trained similarly to and distilled from their largest proprietary models.
Analog models serve as public proxies, allowing broad participation in safety verification, interpretability research, and algorithmic transparency without forcing labs to disclose their full-scale models. Recent research demonstrates that safety and interpretability methods developed using these smaller models generalize effectively to frontier-scale systems. By enabling the wider research community to directly investigate and innovate upon accessible analogs, our policy substantially reduces the regulatory burden and accelerates safety advancements.
This mandate promises minimal additional costs, leveraging reusable resources like data and infrastructure, while significantly contributing to the public good. Our hope is not only that this policy be adopted, but that it illustrates a broader principle supporting fundamental research in machine learning: deeper understanding of models relaxes the safety-innovation tradeoff and lets us have more of both.
\end{abstract}
%%%%% Paper starts here %%%%%
\section{Introduction}
AI safety necessitates transparency and public oversight to mitigate risks posed by increasingly powerful frontier models. However, these regulations have faced harsh criticism, primarily regarding their impact on innovation. Such criticisms have killed many pieces of safety regulation, including California's Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models Act (SB-1047) \citep{ca2024sb1047}, Executive Order 14110 (on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence) \citep{EO14110-2023, EO14148-2025, EO14179-2025}, and the proposed ``6-month AI pause" \citep{FLI2023OpenLetter,FLI2023PolicyPause}. Indeed, even regulations which have been passed (e.g. transparency articles in the EU AI Act \citep{eu2024aiact}) and requests for public comment (e.g. requests for comments from the NTIA \citep{ntia2024rfc}) have seen criticism on the basis of a safety-innovation tradeoff.
However, emerging research suggests a promising resolution to this tension: smaller, openly accessible models can effectively substitute for large proprietary models in developing robust safety interventions. Recent work from both industry \citep{oozeer2025activation} and academia \citep{lee2025sharedgloballocalgeometry}, have shown how safety interventions designed using smaller models can be transferred to larger models. This is an example of weak-to-strong alignment \citep{burns2023weaktostrong}, and has a theoretical basis in the similarity of representations between models \citep{huh2024platonic, li2016convergentlearningdifferentneural, jha2025harnessinguniversalgeometryembeddings}, demonstrating consistency in the generalization of safety interventions from modest-sized models to significantly larger systems.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{images/NeurIPSFigure_v5.pdf}
\caption{The Analog-Model Mandate and Its Effect on the Safety–Innovation Frontier.
\textbf{(A)} Frontier AI models are distilled into small, openly released “analog” models, enabling broad participation in safety testing, interpretability research, and algorithmic transparency; insights from this open loop are then transferred back to improve the safety of the original large model.
\textbf{(B)} By providing a public proxy for each proprietary system, the analog-model mandate (dashed curve) shifts the attainable safety–innovation frontier outward, relaxing the traditional tradeoff (solid curve) between rapid capability development and robust safeguards.}
\label{fig:analogpipeline}
\end{figure}
Motivated by this evidence, we propose a targeted regulatory approach: \textbf{any laboratory releasing frontier AI models must also publicly release a distilled “analog model” trained with identical data and objectives, but capped at a small fraction of the frontier model's size.} This policy allows safety oversight without imposing undue economic or competitive burdens. Key policy details include a specified release lag to address dual-use and security concerns, enforceable compliance hooks tied to existing regulatory mechanisms (such as the U.S. Export Control Reform Act), and clear guardrails around model scale and accessibility.
This position paper contributes to ongoing policy discussions by:
\begin{itemize}
\item Introducing the analog-model mandate as a pragmatic middle-ground regulation.
\item Synthesizing empirical evidence showing the reliable transferability of insights across model scales.
\item Quantifying the compliance burdens of our proposal, positioning them favorably relative to existing requirements such as compute audits mandated by Executive Order 14110.
\item Anticipating common objections—economic impacts, security risks, IP concerns—and providing actionable safeguards and mitigation strategies.
\item Arguing that fundamental research into AI will expand the middle-ground by relaxing the safety-innovation tradeoff.
\end{itemize}
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows: Section~\ref{sec:technicalbasis} surveys evidence supporting cross-scale transferability of safety and interpretability methods; Section~\ref{sec:policy_mechanism} details the specific policy mechanisms, compliance timelines, and regulatory enforcement pathways; Section~\ref{sec:benefits_risks} analyzes the broader impacts, potential risks, and strategic benefits of the analog-model mandate; Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes with recommendations for policymakers and frontier labs.
\section{Technical Background}
\label{sec:technicalbasis}
The efficacy of an analog-model policy hinges on a fundamental technical claim: \textit{Safety and interpretability interventions discovered in small, openly released models reliably transfer to their much larger, proprietary counterparts}. This section supports this claim through three lines of evidence. First, we present concrete experimental demonstrations showing successful cross-scale transfer of interventions. Next, we provide theoretical and empirical backing from representation similarity and scaling law research that elucidates why such transfers consistently work. Finally, we review broader results across alignment research to underscore the generality and reliability of this phenomenon.
\subsection{Empirical Demonstrations of Cross-Scale Safety Interventions}
\citet{oozeer2025activation} showed that a steering vector, learned in minutes on a 0.5 B–1 B open-source model, can reliably neutralise hazardous behaviours in much larger systems.
For a sleeper-agent back-door planted in \textsc{Qwen-0.5B}, the vector drove the trigger rate to almost zero; when the same vector was ported with a two-layer auto-encoder to \textsc{Qwen-1.5B} and to a different architecture (\textsc{Llama3-3B}), trigger rates likewise collapsed from ${\approx}100\%$ to ${<}5\%$—matching native vectors within two percentage-points.
The mapper generalises across seven safety-critical behaviours (back-door removal, refusal, toxicity, hallucination, sycophancy, corrigibility, myopic reward); transferred vectors typically track native ones to within $5$–$10\%$ on success metrics.
\citet{lee2025sharedgloballocalgeometry} complement these findings.
They show that token (un)embedding spaces remain almost isometric across 1 B–70 B checkpoints (Pearson $r>0.9$), and that a closed-form least-squares map fitted on $10^{5}$ random tokens can translate any steering vector between models of different sizes.
Porting seven Llama-3 steering directions from 1 B or 3 B into 8 B reproduces the full dose–response curves of an 8 B-native vector, while an anti-toxicity vector from \textsc{GPT-2 Large} cuts Perspective-API toxicity in \textsc{GPT-2 XL} by the same 20–25 \% margin.
Both experiments were conducted using ${<}\$80$ of GPU time.
\subsection{Why Interventions Transfer: Representational Convergence and Scaling Laws}
Two complementary explanations from recent literature clarify why small-model findings reliably generalize:
\textbf{Representational Convergence.} Recent empirical evidence indicates that as models scale, their internal representations become increasingly similar. This is explained by the ``Platonic Representation Hypothesis" \citep{huh2024platonic}, proposing that neural networks of varying scales and architectures converge to a shared, underlying representation space, shaped by universal statistical regularities in training data. Similar alignment has also been observed in traditional neural networks \citep{li2016convergentlearningdifferentneural} and in embedding models \citep{jha2025harnessinguniversalgeometryembeddings}. Interventions identified in smaller models thus naturally map onto larger counterparts due to this representational alignment.
\textbf{Smooth Scaling Laws.} Contrary to prior assumptions about abrupt capability emergence \citep{wei2022emergentabilitieslargelanguage}, extensive empirical studies show that capabilities scale continuously and predictably with model size \citep{kaplan2020scaling, hoffmann2022training, schaeffer2023mirage}. Continuous scaling implies that interventions tested and verified in analog models predictably influence larger models, reducing uncertainty around the scalability of safety findings.
Representational alignment across different model scales is supported by work on superposition. Small networks cram many more features than they have neurons by storing them in \emph{superposition}—multiple features per axis—while larger models gradually give each feature its own direction.
Toy-model experiments quantify this phase transition and show that the underlying feature vectors remain stable across scales \citep{elhage2022toymodels}.
Follow-up work with sparse dictionary learning recovers thousands of shared, interpretable features in both 70 M- and 1 B-parameter LLMs, establishing a near one-to-one mapping between scales \citep{olah2023monosemanticity}.
Because interventions act on these stable feature directions, we expect an intervention discovered in a 1 B model continues to steer the same concepts in a 70 B (or 700B) model.
\subsection{Generality Across Alignment Research}
A broad set of alignment research validates the utility of analog models:
% Skeptical of the framing in this section. More an argument around weak supervisors as opposed to open-sourcing analog models
\textbf{Weak-to-Strong Label Transfer.} Analog models also enable inexpensive generation of alignment data. \citet{burns2023weaktostrong} showed that using outputs from a small model (124M GPT-2) as supervision for fine-tuning GPT-4 recovered over 90\% of GPT-4's performance on standard alignment benchmarks (MMLU, APPS, TruthfulQA). \citet{somerstep2025weakstrong} provided theoretical guarantees that the risk of distilled large models is proportional to the risk of the smaller supervising model, ensuring the robustness of this approach. Such weak-to-strong label transfer methods reveal analog models' utility as cost-effective tools for open and verifiable data generation, echoing real-world precedents like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback \citep{christiano2017rlhf} and Direct Preference Optimization \citep{rafailov2023dpo}.
\textbf{Interpretability Tools.} Methods such as sparse Crosscoders \citep{lindsey2024crosscoder} and Universal Sparse Auto-Encoders \citep{thasarathan2025usae} highlight representational universality across different model sizes and architectures. These tools mature faster and are more robustly validated on open-source analog models, making them ideal for rigorous interpretability research.
Additional evidence from cross-model audits \citep{minder2025robust} and Rome-style factual edits \citep{meng2022locating} further demonstrate the efficacy of interventions transferring across models.
\textbf{Compression and Distillation.} Techniques like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) \citep{hu2021lora} and knowledge distillation \citep{hsieh2023distilling,hinton2015distilling} effectively compress trillion-parameter models into smaller analog equivalents with minimal capability loss (<2\%), demonstrating again that small analog models encapsulate the core knowledge and capabilities of their larger counterparts. Extensions to multilingual alignment \citep{li2024prealign} and vision-language models \citep{sun2024xvila} further underscore analog models' versatility across modalities.
\subsection{Synthesis: Technical Foundations for Policymakers}
The following empirical and theoretical findings form the technical backbone supporting the analog-model policy:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Predictability:} Model capabilities and representations scale smoothly and predictably.
\item \textbf{Transferability:} Safety interventions, labels, and interpretability insights reliably generalize from small analog models to large frontier models.
\item \textbf{Cost-Effectiveness:} Small analog models enable economical, scalable research and validation efforts, dramatically reducing the burden of regulatory compliance.
\end{enumerate}
Taken together, these results strongly justify an analog-model regulatory framework that enhances innovation, transparency, and safety in frontier AI development.
\section{Policy Mechanism}
\label{sec:policy_mechanism}
We propose a straightforward regulatory requirement: any laboratory that releases a frontier AI model must also release a small, openly accessible ``analog model"—a distillation of the larger system, trained on the same data and objectives but constrained to a fraction of its scale. This section details the scope, structure, compliance requirements, and enforcement pathways of this mandate.
\subsection{Overview and Objectives}
The analog-model mandate aims to reconcile safety and innovation by creating public proxies for frontier AI models. These proxies enable open safety testing, interpretability research, and community oversight without requiring labs to relinquish their proprietary systems. By mandating analog models at minimal cost, the policy stimulates the creation of public goods while respecting commercial incentives.
\subsection{Definitions and Scope}
We do not propose a novel definition of ``frontier model," but rather defer to existing frameworks such as those articulated in the EU AI Act, OECD guidance, and NTIA's request for comment on frontier AI capabilities. These definitions typically rely on thresholds of computational expenditure, model size, or deployment scope, and serve as a stable basis for regulation.
The analog model is defined as a small model derived from the same training run or distillation pipeline as the frontier model, using:
\begin{itemize}
\item Identical or closely matching architecture families;
\item Identical training data and optimization objectives;
\item Post-training via distillation from the frontier model;
\item A size cap between \textbf{0.5\% and 5\%} of the frontier model's parameters.
\end{itemize}
This range allows companies to preserve strategic ambiguity about their largest systems while ensuring that the analog remains lightweight, low-cost, and broadly useful.
\subsection{Release Requirements}
To ensure timely public oversight, analog models must be released within \textbf{1–3 months} following the deployment of their corresponding frontier model. This modest lag balances two needs: giving labs time to apply additional safeguards (e.g., RLHF, watermarking, red-teaming) to the full model before releasing a related analog, while ensuring the analog becomes available early enough to guide oversight and safety research during high-impact deployment windows.
Each analog release must include:
\begin{itemize}
\item The model weights, hosted on an accessible platform;
\item A model card documenting architecture, training setup, and intended research use;
\item A general description of the training data (e.g., sources, modalities, known limitations);
\item Distillation or training scripts (or equivalent documentation) to enable reproducibility.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Licensing and Accessibility}
Analog models must be released under a permissive open-source license (e.g., Apache 2.0, MIT, or equivalent), enabling broad use for academic, safety, and interpretability research. Licenses may include limited safeguards against misuse (e.g., prohibiting military or surveillance use), provided these do not obstruct core research freedoms.
\subsection{Regulatory Oversight and Enforcement}
Compliance will be overseen through existing regulatory channels. In the U.S., enforcement can be tied to authorities established by the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), which already governs the disclosure and transfer of sensitive AI systems. In Europe, enforcement can dovetail with transparency requirements in the EU AI Act.
Regulatory bodies may impose proportionate penalties for non-compliance, such as:
\begin{itemize}
\item Financial fines scaled by model impact;
\item Temporary suspension of future model releases or public deployments;
\item Publication of non-compliance notices, creating reputational accountability.
\end{itemize}
Labs must submit standardized compliance reports documenting analog creation and release timelines. These may be independently verified through audits administered by national AI safety institutes (e.g., NIST in the U.S. or similar bodies internationally).
\subsection{Security and Dual-Use Mitigation}
To guard against dual-use risks, analog release may be delayed up to three months post-deployment, allowing time to assess and mitigate any dangerous emergent behaviors in the frontier model. Prior to release, labs must perform a security evaluation to ensure the analog does not enable capability extraction, jailbreak training, or other misuse.
Where appropriate, regulators may issue guidelines for safe analog release practices, including parameter count ceilings, output filtering, and secure documentation formats.
\subsection{Implementation Timeline and Pilot Program}
We recommend a phased implementation:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Year 1:} Voluntary or incentivized analog releases, coordinated via interagency working groups or multistakeholder consortia.
\item \textbf{Year 2+:} Mandated compliance for all models crossing established frontier thresholds.
\end{itemize}
Pilot programs would allow regulators and labs to co-develop best practices, refine licensing norms, and validate that analog models serve their intended oversight functions without creating leakage or misuse risks.
\subsection{Intellectual Property and Competition Safeguards}
The analog-model mandate is designed to protect proprietary interests while enabling broad public benefit—much like regulatory frameworks in other high-impact, innovation-driven sectors. By requiring the release of a small, non-commercially substitutable proxy, the policy achieves a balance between openness and competitive integrity.
Releasing an analog model:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Preserves proprietary methods:} Labs are not required to disclose sensitive training infrastructure, proprietary optimizers, or fine-grained training data.
\item \textbf{Maintains strategic ambiguity:} The 0.5–5\% size window avoids disclosing the precise scale or architecture of the underlying frontier system.
\item \textbf{Constrains capability exposure:} Analog models are designed to lack the full performance envelope of the frontier model, limiting misuse or commercial substitution.
\end{itemize}
This design draws clear precedent from two sectors that have successfully reconciled public access and private innovation:
\paragraph{Pharmaceuticals: Generic Drug Disclosures}
In pharma, regulatory frameworks (e.g., the Hatch-Waxman Act in the U.S.) require firms to disclose chemical formulations and clinical trial results to facilitate generic production after patent expiry. These disclosures enable competition and public access to life-saving treatments while respecting the commercial lead time granted by patent exclusivity. Similarly, analog models offer the public a scientifically useful version of the frontier system—enabling safety audits, tool development, and public understanding—without undermining the economic value of the full-scale proprietary model.
\paragraph{Telecommunications: Public Protocol Standards}
In telecom and networking, companies frequently participate in the development of open protocols (e.g., TCP/IP, 5G standards), releasing reference implementations and technical specifications to ensure interoperability. Despite this openness, firms retain competitive advantages through superior implementation, proprietary extensions, and integration. Analog models play a similar role: they provide a shared substrate for oversight, tooling, and ecosystem development without disclosing the full competitive edge embedded in the frontier model's scale, tuning, or infrastructure.
In both analogies, regulated openness supports a common public good—access to medicine or interoperable communication—while preserving the innovation incentives necessary for continued investment. Frontier AI development exhibits the same structural tension. The analog-model mandate borrows the best of both worlds: it creates a public proxy for high-impact systems, while preserving competitive differentiation at scale. This approach encourages healthy competition around performance, safety, and social responsibility—without forcing labs into a zero-sum disclosure battle.
\section{Risks \& Benefits}
\label{sec:benefits_risks}
\subsection{Overview} The analog-model mandate aims to balance the safety-innovation tradeoff inherent in frontier AI regulation. This section transparently evaluates the mandate's strategic benefits against its potential risks, directly addressing viable alternative views to ensure rigorous consideration of opposing perspectives.
\subsection{Benefits}
\paragraph{Accelerated Safety and Interpretability Research.} Openly accessible analog models enable broad, independent safety verification and oversight, fostering rapid iteration cycles. Analog models streamline regulatory processes by providing standardized and transparent benchmarks for safety methods. This accelerates the discovery of effective interventions, benefiting both the research community and frontier labs.
\paragraph{Public Goods and Knowledge Spillovers.} Analog models constitute public goods, creating positive externalities through shared methodologies, datasets, and tools. They democratize access to advanced AI research by substantially lowering barriers to participation, thus expanding the pool of researchers contributing to safety advancements.
\paragraph{Improved Trust and Transparency.} By publicly releasing analog models, labs foster greater transparency and accountability, enhancing public trust. External scrutiny facilitated by analog models significantly reduces opacity risks, improving societal confidence in AI deployments.
\paragraph{Enhanced Competitiveness and Innovation.} Analog models stimulate healthy industry competition by providing fair performance benchmarks, motivating continuous improvement. By lowering entry barriers, they foster innovation from smaller companies, startups, and academia, enriching the AI ecosystem and diversifying innovation sources.
\paragraph{Acceleration of AI Progress via Open Source.} Historical precedents demonstrate the substantial benefits of openness in AI, as evidenced by frameworks such as PyTorch, TensorFlow, and Hugging Face's Transformers. Meta's strategic open-sourcing of LLaMA models illustrates how open-source initiatives can catalyze rapid, broad-based innovation without undermining commercial viability, suggesting that analog models could similarly enhance innovation trajectories.
\subsection{Risks and Mitigation Strategies}
\paragraph{Intellectual Property (IP) and Commercial Risks.} A plausible concern is that analog models might inadvertently expose proprietary training data distributions, architectures, or strategic methodologies. This risk can be mitigated through rigorous constraints on analog model scale, delayed release timelines, careful sanitization of documentation, and controlled information disclosures.
\paragraph{Security and Dual-Use Concerns.} Open access to analog models could potentially enable misuse, such as jailbreak research or misinformation campaigns. This risk is addressed through security assessments, enforced lag periods before model release, limitations on model capabilities, and guidelines mandating output filtering to reduce dual-use vulnerabilities.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Break-down of the direct costs required to produce and publish an 8 B-parameter analog model, using AWS on-demand pricing. Estimate based on procedure from \citet{shen2024jetmoe}. This estimate is about 0.1\% the cost of training a foundation model \citep{knight2023gigantormodels}. Although scaling laws such as \citet{hoffmann2022training} would suggest a linear relationship between model size and cost when holding the data the same, training an analog model can piggyback on shared infrastructure with the frontier training run (e.g. data annotation, training pipelines, etc.) \emph{At under \$100{,}000, analogs cost ${\sim}0.1\%$ of a frontier model's training budget}.}
\label{tab:analog_cost}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lrrl@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Step} & \textbf{GPU-hours} & \textbf{Cost (USD)} & \textbf{Source} \\ \midrule
Train analog model from scratch & 5700 & \$70{,}053 & \citet{aws-ec2-on-demand} \\
Distill frontier model$\to$analog & 1000 & \$12{,}290 & \citet{aws-ec2-on-demand} \\
Safety fine-tune/RLHF & 700 & \$8{,}603 & \citet{aws-ec2-on-demand} \\
Weight hosting and bandwidth (3 yr, 20 TB egress) & --- & \$1{,}813 & \citet{aws-s3-pricing} \\ \midrule
\textbf{Total analog cost} & --- & \textbf{\$92{,}759} & \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Regulatory and Compliance Burden.} The requirement to release analog models may impose additional regulatory overhead, including reporting and audits. This burden can be minimized by standardizing compliance reporting, phased policy implementation, and leveraging existing regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act or the Export Control Reform Act to streamline compliance processes. To provide a first order estimate of the compliance cost, we look at the cost of creating an analog model. Table \ref{tab:analog_cost} breaks down the line items for training an analog model, focusing on compute. We anticipate that this would form the majority of the compliance burden -- and even doubling our estimates to account for personnel costs puts this burden at ~0.2\% the cost of training a frontier model.
\paragraph{Substitution Risk to Frontier AI Labs' Revenue.} Analog models might partially substitute proprietary frontier models, potentially reducing revenues. This economic risk is significantly curtailed by deliberately constraining analog models' capabilities, ensuring they serve strictly as research proxies rather than commercially competitive products.
\paragraph{Second-Order Effects from Displacing Alternative Safety Policies.} Focusing regulatory attention primarily on analog-model mandates may inadvertently diminish resources or momentum from other safety initiatives. To mitigate this, policymakers should position analog-model mandates explicitly as complementary to other regulatory efforts, advocating for integrated, multifaceted safety strategies. Simultaneously, however, such second-order effects are difficult to predict. It could be the case that second-order effects point in the opposite direction: successful passage of effective safety policy could lead to momentum for the AI safety movement and accelerate the passage of further legislation.
\paragraph{Uncertainty and Potential Limits to Transferability.} A critical assumption underpinning the analog-model mandate is the reliable transferability of safety interventions from smaller analog models to larger frontier models. Emergent behaviors unique to frontier-scale models might not manifest similarly in analog models, potentially limiting the effectiveness of transferred interventions. Additionally, the foundational research supporting weak-to-strong transferability remains nascent, introducing uncertainty.
This risk underscores the necessity for ongoing empirical validation, structured feedback loops involving frontier labs, academia, and regulators, and adaptability within the policy framework. Incremental deployment paired with continuous validation and regular policy reviews ensures responsiveness to emerging evidence and the ability to refine the policy dynamically. For these reasons, we believe further research on transferring safety interventions across model scales is highly valuable and could have substantial policy impact.
% \subsection{Comparison with Alternative Regulatory Approaches}
% To better situate the analog-model mandate among other leading safety proposals, we briefly compare three paradigms across key dimensions:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item Compute Audits require laboratories to log and disclose detailed compute metrics for every frontier training run. While this increases visibility into resource use and potential capability scaling, it provides only indirect insight into model internals and places a moderate engineering burden on infrastructure and compliance teams.
% \item Mandatory Red-Teaming compels labs to engage qualified external testers to probe models for unsafe behaviors before release. This approach can surface concrete failure modes but typically covers limited adversarial scenarios and incurs significant time and cost, with less benefit to broad interpretability research.
% \item In contrast, the Analog-Model Mandate directly empowers the wider community to develop and validate safety and interpretability tools using openly released proxies. It imposes minimal additional compute or personnel overhead and creates reusable artifacts that spill back to frontier systems, shifting both safety and innovation frontiers outward.
% \end{itemize}
\subsection*{Brown-Field Case Study: Meta's LLaMA Release (2023–2025)}
Since Meta released the LLaMA family of weights in 2023\citep{touvron2023llamaopenefficientfoundation}, the community uptake offers a natural experiment of an \emph{analog-first} strategy:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Rapid scholarly impact:} The original LLaMA paper has accrued \textasciitilde15.8k Google Scholar citations—ranking first among 2023 AI papers—while follow-ups (Code Llama, LLaMA‑2/3) add another \textasciitilde7k citations.
\item \textbf{Vibrant tooling ecosystem:} The inference repo \texttt{meta-llama/llama} boasts 58k~GitHub stars and 9.8k forks, spawning safety-specific forks (e.g., \texttt{LlamaGuard}) and evaluation harnesses like \texttt{llama-stack-evals}.
\item \textbf{Mass adoption:} The most-downloaded variant on Hugging Face exceeds 7.7M pulls, with over ten community checkpoints each surpassing one million downloads.
\item \textbf{Safety research dividends:} More than 60 peer-reviewed studies use LLaMA derivatives to prototype red-teaming, jailbreak defence, or interpretability tools (e.g., \textsc{LlamaGuard}, \textsc{LlamaFuzz}, sparse auto-encoders), several of which later transferred to proprietary frontier models.
\item \textbf{Negligible substitution:} Despite openness, Meta reports no measurable cannibalization of its commercial API revenue, supporting the claim that capped analogs do not erode primary business lines.
\end{itemize}
These data points support the mandate's central thesis: \emph{small, open checkpoints catalyze an outsized safety-innovation flywheel while imposing minimal direct costs}.
\subsection{Risk–Benefit Synthesis and Strategic Assessment} Weighing identified risks against proposed mitigation strategies reveals that the analog-model mandate offers substantial benefits with manageable residual risks. It represents a high-leverage intervention that concurrently enhances AI safety, innovation, transparency, and public trust. Given robust safeguards, clearly defined policy adaptability, and compelling evidence from open-source precedents, the analog-model mandate emerges as an effective and strategically sound policy proposal.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
Policy debates around AI safety often frame \emph{safety} and \emph{innovation} as a dilemma: tighten oversight and progress slows, loosen reins and risk soars. Our proposal -- requiring a small, open “analog model" alongside each frontier deployment -- shows this is a false dilemma. An analog model mandate would improve safety by allowing open oversight that transfers to large models, improve innovation by allowing more open research, and have minimal costs.
\citet{solow1957technical} presents technology as a multiplier \(A\) that shifts the entire production-possibility frontier outward -- more of every output becomes feasible with the \emph{same} capital and labour. \citet{arrow1962economic} then points out that invention is a public good: because ideas can be copied, private actors invest less in them than society would prefer, so policy that spreads knowledge moves the realised economy closer to the true frontier.
A mandatory, openly released “analog” checkpoint plays exactly that public-good role for frontier AI. It is small enough to run on commodity GPUs yet faithful enough to act as a \emph{proxy} for its larger sibling. Unfettered access lets independent researchers generate safety interventions, interpretability tools and benchmark data that spill back to the proprietary model. In Solow's terms, the policy raises the effective \(A\) for safety research; in Arrow's terms, it overcomes the under-investment that would occur if each lab guarded its weights behind NDAs.
The mandate costs labs little (one extra distillation run) but unlocks a compounding stream of public knowledge. Each new red-teaming script, steering vector or interpretability probe discovered on the analog becomes immediately useful to every frontier deployment of the same architecture family—expanding the set of Pareto-improving policy choices. The result is a net outward shift of the AI innovation–safety frontier: regulators and developers can simultaneously demand higher safety bars \emph{and} enjoy faster downstream progress.
\subsection*{Future Work}
Looking forward, several important directions can extend and refine the analog-model mandate:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Broaden technical validation:} Systematic studies of analog-to-frontier transfer for emergent behaviors (e.g., chain-of-thought reasoning) to ensure safety interventions remain effective at scale.
\item \textbf{Multi-modal analogs:} Release analog versions of vision, audio, and multi-modal models to generalize the policy beyond text.
\item \textbf{Standardized benchmarks:} Develop community-driven challenge suites and metrics for assessing analog fidelity and intervention generality across architectures.
\item \textbf{Policy experiments:} Pilot alternative release-lag windows, size caps, and licensing terms to identify optimal regulatory parameters. We believe it would be particularly fruitful for large labs to adopt the polict voluntarily.
\item \textbf{Ecosystem infrastructure:} Build open repositories and governance frameworks for collaboratively curating, updating, and maintaining analog checkpoints across labs, academia, and regulators.
\end{itemize}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{main}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{39}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
\providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem[Arrow(1962)]{arrow1962economic}
Kenneth~J. Arrow.
\newblock Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention.
\newblock In Richard~R. Nelson, editor, \emph{The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors}, pages 609--626. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1962.
\newblock URL \url{https://www.nber.org/chapters/c2144}.
\bibitem[Biden(2023)]{EO14110-2023}
Jr. Biden, Joseph~R.
\newblock Executive order 14110{:} safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence.
\newblock Presidential Document, \textit{Federal Register} \textbf{88}, 75191–75226, October 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/01/2023-24283/safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence}.
\newblock Document No.\ 2023-24283; published 1 Nov 2023.
\bibitem[Bricken et~al.(2023)Bricken, Templeton, Batson, Chen, Jermyn, Conerly, Turner, Anil, Denison, Askell, Lasenby, Wu, Kravec, Schiefer, Maxwell, Joseph, Hatfield-Dodds, Tamkin, Nguyen, McLean, Burke, Hume, Carter, Henighan, and Olah]{olah2023monosemanticity}
Trenton Bricken, Adly Templeton, Joshua Batson, Brian Chen, Adam Jermyn, Tom Conerly, Nicholas Turner, Cem Anil, Carson Denison, Amanda Askell, Robert Lasenby, Yifan Wu, Shauna Kravec, Nicholas Schiefer, Tim Maxwell, Nicholas Joseph, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Alex Tamkin, Karina Nguyen, Brayden McLean, Josiah~E.\ Burke, Tristan Hume, Shan Carter, Tom Henighan, and Christopher Olah.
\newblock Towards monosemanticity: Decomposing language models with dictionary learning.
\newblock Transformer Circuits Thread, 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://transformer-circuits.pub/2023/monosemantic-features/index.html}.
\bibitem[Burns et~al.(2023)Burns, Izmailov, Kirchner, Baker, Gao, Aschenbrenner, Chen, Ecoffet, Joglekar, Leike, Sutskever, and Wu]{burns2023weaktostrong}
Collin Burns, Pavel Izmailov, Jan~Hendrik Kirchner, Bowen Baker, Leo Gao, Leopold Aschenbrenner, Yining Chen, Adrien Ecoffet, Manas Joglekar, Jan Leike, Ilya Sutskever, and Jeff Wu.
\newblock Weak\textendash to\textendash strong generalization: Eliciting strong capabilities with weak supervision.
\newblock Technical report, OpenAI, 2023.
\newblock \url{https://cdn.openai.com/papers/weak-to-strong-generalization.pdf}.
\bibitem[{California State Senate}(2024)]{ca2024sb1047}
{California State Senate}.
\newblock Sb-1047: Safe and secure innovation for frontier artificial intelligence models act, 2024.
\newblock Version dated 3 September 2024. URL: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill\_id=202320240SB1047.
\bibitem[Christiano et~al.(2017)Christiano, Leike, and et~al.]{christiano2017rlhf}
Paul~F. Christiano, Jan Leike, and Tom B.~Brown et~al.
\newblock Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.
\newblock \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, 2017.
\bibitem[Elhage et~al.(2022)Elhage, Hume, Olsson, Schiefer, Henighan, Kravec, Hatfield-Dodds, Lasenby, Drain, Chen, Grosse, McCandlish, Kaplan, Amodei, Wattenberg, and Olah]{elhage2022toymodels}
Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, Roger Grosse, Sam McCandlish, Jared Kaplan, Dario Amodei, Martin Wattenberg, and Christopher Olah.
\newblock Toy models of superposition, 2022.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.10652}.
\bibitem[{European Parliament and Council}(2024)]{eu2024aiact}
{European Parliament and Council}.
\newblock Regulation (eu) 2024/1689 on harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (ai act).
\newblock Official Journal of the European Union L 245/1, June 2024.
\newblock See Article 50 “Transparency Obligations for Providers and Deployers of Certain AI Systems”.
\bibitem[{Future of Life Institute}(2023{\natexlab{a}})]{FLI2023OpenLetter}
{Future of Life Institute}.
\newblock Pause giant ai experiments{:} an open letter, March 2023{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock URL \url{https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/}.
\newblock Published 22 March 2023.
\bibitem[{Future of Life Institute}(2023{\natexlab{b}})]{FLI2023PolicyPause}
{Future of Life Institute}.
\newblock Policymaking in the pause, April 2023{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock URL \url{https://futureoflife.org/document/policymaking-in-the-pause/}.
\newblock Policy brief, published 12 April 2023; last revised 19 April 2023.
\bibitem[Hinton et~al.(2015)Hinton, Vinyals, and Dean]{hinton2015distilling}
Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean.
\newblock Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531}, 2015.
\bibitem[Hoffmann et~al.(2022)Hoffmann, Borgeaud, Mensch, Buchatskaya, Cai, Rutherford, de~Las~Casas, Hendricks, Welbl, Clark, Hennigan, Noland, Millican, van~den Driessche, Damoc, Guy, Osindero, Simonyan, Elsen, Rae, Vinyals, and Sifre]{hoffmann2022training}
Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de~Las~Casas, Lisa~Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van~den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Erich Elsen, Jack~W. Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre.
\newblock Training compute-optimal large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556}, 2022.
\bibitem[Hsieh et~al.(2023)Hsieh, Li, Yeh, Nakhost, Fujii, Ratner, Krishna, Lee, and Pfister]{hsieh2023distilling}
Cheng\textendash~Yu Hsieh, Chun\textendash~Liang Li, Chih\textendash~Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alexander Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen\textendash~Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister.
\newblock Distilling step\textendash by\textendash step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes.
\newblock In \emph{Findings of ACL 2023}, 2023.
\newblock \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02301}.
\bibitem[Hu et~al.(2021)Hu, Shen, and Wallis]{hu2021lora}
Edward Hu, Yelong Shen, and Phillip et~al. Wallis.
\newblock Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685}, 2021.
\bibitem[Huh et~al.(2024)Huh, Cheung, Wang, and Isola]{huh2024platonic}
Minyoung Huh, Brian Cheung, Tongzhou Wang, and Phillip Isola.
\newblock The platonic representation hypothesis.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07987}, 2024.
\bibitem[Jha et~al.(2025)Jha, Zhang, Shmatikov, and Morris]{jha2025harnessinguniversalgeometryembeddings}
Rishi Jha, Collin Zhang, Vitaly Shmatikov, and John~X. Morris.
\newblock Harnessing the universal geometry of embeddings, 2025.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12540}.
\bibitem[Kaplan et~al.(2020)Kaplan, McCandlish, Henighan, Brown, Chess, Child, Gray, Radford, Wu, and Amodei]{kaplan2020scaling}
Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom~B. Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei.
\newblock Scaling laws for neural language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361}, 2020.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08361}.
\bibitem[Knight(2023)]{knight2023gigantormodels}
Will Knight.
\newblock Openai’s ceo says the age of giant ai models is already over.
\newblock \emph{Wired}, April 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://www.wired.com/story/openai-ceo-sam-altman-the-age-of-giant-ai-models-is-already-over/}.
\newblock Accessed: 2025-05-23.
\bibitem[Lee et~al.(2025)Lee, Weber, Viégas, and Wattenberg]{lee2025sharedgloballocalgeometry}
Andrew Lee, Melanie Weber, Fernanda Viégas, and Martin Wattenberg.
\newblock Shared global and local geometry of language model embeddings, 2025.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21073}.
\bibitem[Li et~al.(2024)Li, Huang, and Dai]{li2024prealign}
Jiahuan Li, Shujian Huang, and Xinyu et~al. Dai.
\newblock Prealign: Boosting cross-lingual transfer by early establishment of multilingual alignment.
\newblock In \emph{EMNLP 2024}, 2024.
\newblock arXiv:2407.16222.
\bibitem[Li et~al.(2016)Li, Yosinski, Clune, Lipson, and Hopcroft]{li2016convergentlearningdifferentneural}
Yixuan Li, Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Hod Lipson, and John Hopcroft.
\newblock Convergent learning: Do different neural networks learn the same representations?, 2016.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07543}.
\bibitem[Lindsey et~al.(2024)Lindsey, Templeton, Marcus, Conerly, Batson, and Olah]{lindsey2024crosscoder}
Jack Lindsey, Adly Templeton, Jonathan Marcus, Thomas Conerly, Joshua Batson, and Christopher Olah.
\newblock Sparse crosscoders for cross-layer features and model diffing.
\newblock 2024.
\newblock Transformer Circuits Thread, \url{https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/crosscoders/index.html}.
\bibitem[Meng et~al.(2022)Meng, Bau, Andonian, and Belinkov]{meng2022locating}
Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov.
\newblock Locating and editing factual associations in {GPT}.
\newblock In \emph{Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems}, volume~35, pages 17359--17372. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022.
\newblock URL \url{https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/6a836a22e8f5e3eabcf948bedb1a537f-Paper-Conference.pdf}.
\bibitem[Minder et~al.(2025)Minder, Dumas, Juang, Chugtai, and Nanda]{minder2025robust}
Julian Minder, Clément Dumas, Caden Juang, Bilal Chugtai, and Neel Nanda.
\newblock Robustly identifying concepts introduced during chat fine-tuning using crosscoders.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02922}, 2025.
\bibitem[Oozeer et~al.(2025)Oozeer, Nathawani, Prakash, Lan, Harrasse, and Abdullah]{oozeer2025activation}
Narmeen Oozeer, Dhruv Nathawani, Nirmalendu Prakash, Michael Lan, Abir Harrasse, and Amirali Abdullah.
\newblock Activation space interventions can be transferred between large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04429}, 2025.
\bibitem[Rafailov et~al.(2023)Rafailov, Sharma, Mitchell, Ermon, Manning, and Finn]{rafailov2023dpo}
Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher~D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn.
\newblock Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18290}, 2023.
\bibitem[Schaeffer et~al.(2023)Schaeffer, Miranda, and Koyejo]{schaeffer2023mirage}
Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo.
\newblock Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage?
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.15004}, 2023.
\bibitem[Services(2025{\natexlab{a}})]{aws-ec2-on-demand}
Amazon~Web Services.
\newblock Amazon ec2 on-demand pricing.
\newblock \url{https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/}, 2025{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock Accessed: 2025-05-23.
\bibitem[Services(2025{\natexlab{b}})]{aws-s3-pricing}
Amazon~Web Services.
\newblock Amazon s3 pricing (storage and data transfer).
\newblock \url{https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/}, 2025{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock Accessed: 2025-05-23.
\bibitem[Shen et~al.(2024)Shen, Guo, Cai, and Qin]{shen2024jetmoe}
Yikang Shen, Zhen Guo, Tianle Cai, and Zengyi Qin.
\newblock {JetMoE}: Reaching {LLaMA2} performance with \$0.1m dollars.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint}, 2024.
\bibitem[Solow(1957)]{solow1957technical}
Robert~M. Solow.
\newblock Technical change and the aggregate production function.
\newblock \emph{The Review of Economics and Statistics}, 39\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 312--320, August 1957.
\newblock \doi{10.2307/1926047}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.2307/1926047}.
\bibitem[Somerstep et~al.(2025)Somerstep, Polo, Banerjee, Ritov, Yurochkin, and Sun]{somerstep2025weakstrong}
Seamus Somerstep, Felipe~Maia Polo, Moulinath Banerjee, Ya’acov Ritov, Mikhail Yurochkin, and Yuekai Sun.
\newblock A transfer learning framework for weak-to-strong generalization.
\newblock In \emph{Proceedings of ICLR 2025}, 2025.
\newblock arXiv:2405.16236.
\bibitem[Sun et~al.(2024)Sun, Bai, and Yang]{sun2024xvila}
Jing Sun, Yuwei Bai, and Jianlin et~al. Yang.
\newblock X-vila: Cross-modality alignment for large language models.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19335}, 2024.
\bibitem[Telecommunications and Administration(2024)]{ntia2024rfc}
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
\newblock {Request for Comment on Dual-Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Weights}.
\newblock Federal Register Notice, 89 Fed. Reg. 18259, March 2024.
\newblock URL: https://www.ntia.gov/federal-register-notice/2024/ntia-request-open-weight-models.
\bibitem[Thasarathan et~al.(2025)Thasarathan, Forsyth, Fel, Kowal, and Derpanis]{thasarathan2025usae}
Harrish Thasarathan, Julian Forsyth, Thomas Fel, Matthew Kowal, and Konstantinos Derpanis.
\newblock Universal sparse autoencoders: Interpretable cross-model concept alignment.
\newblock \emph{arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03714}, 2025.
\bibitem[Touvron et~al.(2023)Touvron, Lavril, Izacard, Martinet, Lachaux, Lacroix, Rozière, Goyal, Hambro, Azhar, Rodriguez, Joulin, Grave, and Lample]{touvron2023llamaopenefficientfoundation}
Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample.
\newblock Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971}.
\bibitem[Trump(2025{\natexlab{a}})]{EO14148-2025}
Donald~J. Trump.
\newblock Executive order 14148{:} initial rescissions of harmful executive orders and actions.
\newblock Presidential Document, \textit{Federal Register} \textbf{90}, 8237--8241, January 2025{\natexlab{a}}.
\newblock URL \url{https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/28/2025-01901/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions}.
\newblock Revokes EO 14110 (2023); published in the \textit{Federal Register} on 28 Jan 2025.
\bibitem[Trump(2025{\natexlab{b}})]{EO14179-2025}
Donald~J. Trump.
\newblock Executive order 14179{:} removing barriers to american leadership in artificial intelligence.
\newblock Presidential Document, \textit{Federal Register} \textbf{90}, 8741–8742, January 2025{\natexlab{b}}.
\newblock URL \url{https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/}.
\newblock FR Doc.\ 2025-02172; published 31 Jan 2025.
\bibitem[Wei et~al.(2022)Wei, Tay, Bommasani, Raffel, Zoph, Borgeaud, Yogatama, Bosma, Zhou, Metzler, Chi, Hashimoto, Vinyals, Liang, Dean, and Fedus]{wei2022emergentabilitieslargelanguage}
Jason Wei, Yi~Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, Ed~H. Chi, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Oriol Vinyals, Percy Liang, Jeff Dean, and William Fedus.
\newblock Emergent abilities of large language models, 2022.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682}.
\end{thebibliography}