对比AI大厂实践与欧盟AI法案安全要求，揭示行业已有先例
Mapping Industry Practices to the EU AI Act's GPAI Code of Practice Safety and Security Measures
- 梳理头部企业公开安全框架与模型卡片，匹配法案16项安全措施
- 超半数条款在5家以上公司文档中找到对应实践依据
- 为监管与企业对话提供真实行业实践参考，非合规判断
本报告详细比较了欧盟《通用人工智能法案》（GPAI）第三版《行为准则》中提出的安全与安保措施，与领先AI公司当前自愿采纳的承诺和实践。随着欧盟推进对通用人工智能模型提供商的强制性义务，该行为准则将成为连接法律要求与具体技术承诺的关键桥梁。分析聚焦于草案中“安全与安保”部分（承诺II.1至II.16），从包括OpenAI、Anthropic、Google DeepMind、Microsoft、Meta、Amazon等在内的十余家公司中，系统审查其前沿安全框架、模型卡片等公开文件，并摘录与各条措施相关的原文。报告旨在通过呈现行业已有实践，促进监管者与通用人工智能模型提供商之间的对话，而非评估法律合规性或推荐政策方向。尽管如此，我们发现绝大多数措施（承诺II.1-II.16）在至少五家公司的公开文件中能找到相关引述。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This report provides a detailed comparison between the Safety and Security measures proposed in the EU AI Act's General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice (Third Draft) and the current commitments and practices voluntarily adopted by leading AI companies. As the EU moves toward enforcing binding obligations for GPAI model providers, the Code of Practice will be key for bridging legal requirements with concrete technical commitments. Our analysis focuses on the draft's Safety and Security section (Commitments II.1-II.16), documenting excerpts from current public-facing documents that are relevant to each individual measure. We systematically reviewed different document types, such as companies' frontier safety frameworks and model cards, from over a dozen companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and others. This report is not meant to be an indication of legal compliance, nor does it take any prescriptive viewpoint about the Code of Practice or companies' policies. Instead, it aims to inform the ongoing dialogue between regulators and General-Purpose AI model providers by surfacing evidence of industry precedent for various measures. Nonetheless, we were able to find relevant quotes from at least 5 companies' documents for the majority of the measures in Commitments II.1-II.16.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。