Today Brundage formally announced the AI Verification and Evaluation Research Institute (AVERI), a new nonprofit aimed at pushing the idea that frontier AI models should be subject to external auditing. AVERI is also working to establish AI auditing standards.

The launch coincides with the publication of a research paper, coauthored by Brundage and more than 30 AI safety researchers and governance experts, that lays out a detailed framework for how independent audits of the companies building the world’s most powerful AI systems could work.

Brundage spent seven years at OpenAI, as a policy researcher and an advisor on how the company should prepare for the advent of human-like artificial general intelligence. He left the company in October 2024. 

“One of the things I learned while working at OpenAI is that companies are figuring out the norms of this kind of thing on their own,” Brundage told Fortune. “There’s no one forcing them to work with third-party experts to make sure that things are safe and secure. They kind of write their own rules.”

That creates risks. Although the leading AI labs conduct safety and security testing and publish technical reports on the results of many of these evaluations, some of which they conduct with the help of external “red team” organizations, right now consumers, business and governments simply have to trust what the AI labs say about these tests. No one is forcing them to conduct these evaluations or report them according to any particular set of standards.

Brundage said that in other industries, auditing is used to provide the public—including consumers, business partners, and to some degree regulators—assurance that products are safe and have been tested in a rigorous way. 

“If you go out and buy a vacuum cleaner, you know, there will be components in it, like batteries, that have been tested by independent laboratories according to rigorous safety standards to make sure it isn’t going to catch on fire,” he said.

New institute will push for policies and standards

Brundage said that AVERI was interested in policies that would encourage the AI labs to move to a system of rigorous external auditing, as well as researching what the standards should be for those audits, but was not interested in conducting audits itself.

“We’re a think tank. We’re trying to understand and shape this transition,” he said. “We’re not trying to get all the Fortune 500 companies as customers.”

He said existing public accounting, auditing, assurance, and testing firms could move into the business of auditing AI safety, or that startups would be established to take on this role.

AVERI said it has raised $7.5 million toward a goal of $13 million to cover 14 staff and two years of operations. Its funders so far include Halcyon Futures, Fathom, Coefficient Giving, former Y Combinator president Geoff Ralston, Craig Falls, Good Forever Foundation, Sympatico Ventures, and the AI Underwriting Company. 

The organization says it has also received donations from current and former non-executive employees of frontier AI companies. “These are people who know where the bodies are buried” and “would love to see more accountability,” Brundage said.

Insurance companies or investors could force AI safety audits

Brundage said that there could be several mechanisms that would encourage AI firms to begin to hire independent auditors. One is that big businesses that are buying AI models may demand audits in order to have some assurance that the AI models they are buying will function as promised and don’t pose hidden risks.

Insurance companies may also push for the establishment of AI auditing. For instance, insurers offering business continuity insurance to large companies that use AI models for key business processes could require auditing as a condition of underwriting. The insurance industry may also require audits in order to write policies for the leading AI companies, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google.

“Insurance is certainly moving quickly,” Brundage said. “We have a lot of conversations with insurers.” He noted that one specialized AI insurance company, the AI Underwriting Company, has provided a donation to AVERI because “they see the value of auditing in kind of checking compliance with the standards that they’re writing.”

Investors may also demand AI safety audits to be sure they aren’t taking on unknown risks, Brundage said. Given the multi-million and multi-billion dollar checks that investment firms are now writing to fund AI companies, it would make sense for these investors to demand independent auditing of the safety and security of the products these fast-growing startups are building. If any of the leading labs go public—as OpenAI and Anthropic have reportedly been preparing to do in the coming year or two—a failure to employ auditors to assess the risks of AI models could open these companies up to shareholder lawsuits or SEC prosecutions if something were to later go wrong that contributed to a significant fall in their share prices.  

Brundage also said that regulation or international agreements could force AI labs to employ independent auditors. The U.S. currently has no federal regulation of AI and it is unclear whether any will be created. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order meant to crack down on U.S. states that pass their own AI regulations. The administration has said this is because it believes a single, federal standard would be easier for businesses to navigate than multiple state laws. But, while moving to punish states for enacting AI regulation, the administration has not yet proposed a national standard of its own.

In other geographies, however, the groundwork for auditing may already be taking shape. The EU AI Act, which recently came into force, does not explicitly call for audits of AI companies’ evaluation procedures. But its “Code of Practice for General Purpose AI,” which is a kind of blueprint for how frontier AI labs can comply with the Act, does say that labs building models that could pose “systemic risks” need to provide external evaluators with complimentary access to test the models. The text of the Act itself also says that when organizations deploy AI in “high-risk” use cases, such as underwriting loans, determining eligibility for social benefits, or determining medical care, the AI system must undergo an external “conformity assessment” before being placed on the market. Some have interpreted these sections of the Act and the Code as implying a need for what are essentially independent auditors.

Establishing ‘assurance levels,’ finding enough qualified auditors

The research paper published alongside AVERI’s launch outlines a comprehensive vision for what frontier AI auditing should look like. It proposes a framework of “AI Assurance Levels” ranging from Level 1—which involves some third-party testing but limited access and is similar to the kinds of external evaluations that the AI labs currently employ companies to conduct—all the way to Level 4, which would provide “treaty grade” assurance sufficient for international agreements on AI safety.

Building a cadre of qualified AI auditors presents its own difficulties. AI auditing requires a mix of technical expertise and governance knowledge that few possess—and those who do are often lured by lucrative offers from the very companies that would be audited.

Brundage acknowledged the challenge but said it’s surmountable. He talked of mixing people with different backgrounds to build “dream teams” that in combination have the right skill sets. “You might have some people from an existing audit firm, plus some people from a penetration testing firm from cybersecurity, plus some people from one of the AI safety nonprofits, plus maybe an academic,” he said.

In other industries, from nuclear power to food safety, it has often been catastrophes, or at least close calls, that provided the impetus for standards and independent evaluations. Brundage said his hope is that with AI, auditing infrastructure and norms could be established before a crisis occurs.

“The goal, from my perspective, is to get to a level of scrutiny that is proportional to the actual impacts and risks of the technology, as smoothly as possible, as quickly as possible, without overstepping,” he said.

Within that order was a stipulation that the Secretary of War would later submit a presidential application to permanently change the name of the department.

However, rebranding the nation’s biggest employer is no small task. The Pentagon oversees 1.32 million people in active duty and 750,000 civilian personnel.

According to the CBO, which responded to a request for information from senators Jeff Merkley and Chuck Schumer, the shift would cost about $10 million for a “modest implementation” of the change, primarily within the department itself. This sum could be absorbed as an opportunity cost, the CBO added, paid out of existing budgets.

But there are two ends to the scale: Minimal implementation might cost a measly few million, the CBO said, but on the extreme end it could cost taxpayers $125 million.

“Broadly, the costs would include staff time spent updating document templates, revising websites, or modifying letterhead, time that could be devoted to the activities that the department had planned to conduct before the executive order was issued,” the CBO wrote. “Similarly, funds used for signage or ceremonial items could reduce resources available for planned items or activities.”

The scale of the costs depends on how “aggressively” the rebrand is rolled out, and how it would be prioritized against remaining activities and “ongoing missions.” A more aggressive rollout, for example, might include “immediately replacing stationery, signage, and nameplates” as opposed to replacing them when existing stock runs out.

“The faster the changes were implemented, the more parts of DoD that the changes applied to, and the more complete the renaming, the costlier it would be,” the CBO added.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the now aptly-named Department of War is refocused on readiness and lethality—and its title now reflects its status as the most powerful fighting force in the world,” the White House told Fortune. “The White House is working hand-in-glove with the Department of War on implementation of the executive order.”

One of the most expensive endeavours in the proposed change would be renaming the air bases. Even back in March 2023, the Army projected that it would cost at least $39 million to rename nine posts: Forts AP Hill, Benning, Bragg, Gordon, Hood, Lee, Pickett, Polk, and Rucker. That was nearly double an estimate by the Naming Commission a year prior, which put the price at $21 million.

There are also costs incurred for other non-federal entities if the Department of War decides to push its name change through as a blanket approach. For example, the CBO points out that North Carolina spent $400,000 in 2023 to change the name of Fort Bragg to Fort Liberty, just to change it back to Fort Bragg again last summer.