A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04893v1
• Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:55:08 GMT
• Title: A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming
• Authors: Shayne Longpre, Sayash Kapoor, Kevin Klyman, Ashwin Ramaswami, Rishi Bommasani, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Yangsibo Huang, Aviya Skowron, Zheng-Xin Yong, Suhas Kotha, Yi Zeng, Weiyan Shi, Xianjun Yang, Reid Southen, Alexander Robey, Patrick Chao, Diyi Yang, Ruoxi Jia, Daniel Kang, Sandy Pentland, Arvind Narayanan, Percy Liang, Peter Henderson
• Abstract summary: Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
• Score: 124.89885800509505
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. Although some companies offer researcher access programs, they are an inadequate substitute for independent research access, as they have limited community representation, receive inadequate funding, and lack independence from corporate incentives. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, indemnifying public interest safety research and protecting it from the threat of account suspensions or legal reprisal. These proposals emerged from our collective experience conducting safety, privacy, and trustworthiness research on generative AI systems, where norms and incentives could be better aligned with public interests, without exacerbating model misuse. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.

Related papers

• Attack Atlas: A Practitioner's Perspective on Challenges and Pitfalls in Red Teaming GenAI [52.138044013005]
  generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), become increasingly integrated into production applications. New attack surfaces and vulnerabilities emerge and put a focus on adversarial threats in natural language and multi-modal systems. Red-teaming has gained importance in proactively identifying weaknesses in these systems, while blue-teaming works to protect against such adversarial attacks. This work aims to bridge the gap between academic insights and practical security measures for the protection of generative AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T10:18:10Z)
• Mapping Technical Safety Research at AI Companies: A literature review and incentives analysis [0.0]
  Report analyzes the technical research into safe AI development being conducted by three leading AI companies. Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and OpenAI. We defined safe AI development as developing AI systems that are unlikely to pose large-scale misuse or accident risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-12T09:34:55Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)
• Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from AI [0.0]
  We argue that voluntary commitments from AI companies would be an inappropriate and insufficient response. We describe three policy proposals that would meaningfully address the threats from advanced AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T15:53:14Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• Is the U.S. Legal System Ready for AI's Challenges to Human Values? [16.510834081597377]
  This study investigates how effectively U.S. laws confront the challenges posed by Generative AI to human values. We identify notable gaps and uncertainties within the existing legal framework regarding the protection of fundamental values. We advocate for legal frameworks that evolve to recognize new threats and provide proactive, auditable guidelines to industry stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T09:19:06Z)
• Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safety [69.59465535312815]
  Regulatory Markets for AI is a proposal designed with adaptability in mind. It involves governments setting outcome-based targets for AI companies to achieve. We warn that it is alarmingly easy to stumble on incentives which would prevent Regulatory Markets from achieving this goal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-06T14:42:05Z)
• Filling gaps in trustworthy development of AI [20.354549569362035]
  Growing awareness of potential risks from AI systems has spurred action to address those risks. But the principles often leave a gap between the "what" and the "how" of trustworthy AI development. There is thus an urgent need for concrete methods that both enable AI developers to prevent harm and allow them to demonstrate their trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T22:45:28Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

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.