From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible ML

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03535v1
• Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 00:09:06 GMT
• Title: From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible ML
• Authors: Shalaleh Rismani, Renee Shelby, Andrew Smart, Edgar Jatho, Joshua Kroll, AJung Moon, Negar Rostamzadeh
• Abstract summary: Inappropriate design and deployment of machine learning (ML) systems leads to negative downstream social and ethical impact for users, society and the environment. Despite the growing need to regulate ML systems, current processes for assessing and mitigating risks are disjointed and inconsistent.
• Score: 8.411124873373172
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Inappropriate design and deployment of machine learning (ML) systems leads to negative downstream social and ethical impact -- described here as social and ethical risks -- for users, society and the environment. Despite the growing need to regulate ML systems, current processes for assessing and mitigating risks are disjointed and inconsistent. We interviewed 30 industry practitioners on their current social and ethical risk management practices, and collected their first reactions on adapting safety engineering frameworks into their practice -- namely, System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Our findings suggest STPA/FMEA can provide appropriate structure toward social and ethical risk assessment and mitigation processes. However, we also find nontrivial challenges in integrating such frameworks in the fast-paced culture of the ML industry. We call on the ML research community to strengthen existing frameworks and assess their efficacy, ensuring that ML systems are safer for all people.

Related papers

• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models [75.67623347512368]
  We propose toolns, a comprehensive framework designed for conducting safety evaluations of MLLMs. Our framework consists of a comprehensive harmful query dataset and an automated evaluation protocol. Based on our framework, we conducted large-scale experiments on 15 widely-used open-source MLLMs and 6 commercial MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:14:40Z)
• HAICOSYSTEM: An Ecosystem for Sandboxing Safety Risks in Human-AI Interactions [76.42274173122328]
  We present HAICOSYSTEM, a framework examining AI agent safety within diverse and complex social interactions. We run 1840 simulations based on 92 scenarios across seven domains (e.g., healthcare, finance, education) Our experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs, both proprietary and open-sourced, exhibit safety risks in over 50% cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T19:47:21Z)
• EAIRiskBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [47.69642609574771]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction. Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results. However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges. This study introduces EAIRiskBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• A Conceptual Framework for Ethical Evaluation of Machine Learning Systems [12.887834116390358]
  Ethical implications appear when designing evaluations of machine learning systems. We present a utility framework, characterizing the key trade-off in ethical evaluation as balancing information gain against potential ethical harms. Our analysis underscores the critical need for development teams to deliberately assess and manage ethical complexities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T01:06:49Z)
• Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy: Risks of LLM Agents for Science [65.77763092833348]
  Intelligent agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that demand careful consideration for safety. This paper conducts a thorough examination of vulnerabilities in LLM-based agents within scientific domains, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse and emphasizing the need for safety measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)
• Beyond the ML Model: Applying Safety Engineering Frameworks to Text-to-Image Development [8.912560990925993]
  We apply two well-established safety engineering frameworks (FMEA,A) to a case study involving text-to-image models. Results of our analysis demonstrate the safety frameworks can uncover failure and hazards that pose social and ethical risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T02:46:20Z)
• Leveraging Traceability to Integrate Safety Analysis Artifacts into the Software Development Process [51.42800587382228]
  Safety assurance cases (SACs) can be challenging to maintain during system evolution. We propose a solution that leverages software traceability to connect relevant system artifacts to safety analysis models. We elicit design rationales for system changes to help safety stakeholders analyze the impact of system changes on safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T16:03:27Z)
• Concrete Safety for ML Problems: System Safety for ML Development and Assessment [0.758305251912708]
  Concerns of trustworthiness, unintended social harms, and unacceptable social and ethical violations undermine the promise of ML advancements. Systems safety engineering is an established discipline with a proven track record of identifying and managing risks even in high-complexity sociotechnical systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T18:02:07Z)
• System Safety Engineering for Social and Ethical ML Risks: A Case Study [0.5249805590164902]
  Governments, industry, and academia have undertaken efforts to identify and mitigate harms in ML-driven systems. Existing approaches are largely disjointed, ad-hoc and of unknown effectiveness. We focus in particular on how this analysis can extend to identifying social and ethical risks and developing concrete design-level controls to mitigate them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T22:58:58Z)
• The Risks of Machine Learning Systems [11.105884571838818]
  A system's overall risk is influenced by its direct and indirect effects. Existing frameworks for ML risk/impact assessment often address an abstract notion of risk or do not concretize this dependence. First-order risks stem from aspects of the ML system, while second-order risks stem from the consequences of first-order risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-21T02:42:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.