On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07918v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 16:49:53 GMT
• Title: On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models
• Authors: Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani, Kevin Klyman, Shayne Longpre, Ashwin Ramaswami, Peter Cihon, Aspen Hopkins, Kevin Bankston, Stella Biderman, Miranda Bogen, Rumman Chowdhury, Alex Engler, Peter Henderson, Yacine Jernite, Seth Lazar, Stefano Maffulli, Alondra Nelson, Joelle Pineau, Aviya Skowron, Dawn Song, Victor Storchan, Daniel Zhang, Daniel E. Ho, Percy Liang, Arvind Narayanan,
• Abstract summary: We focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights. We identify five distinctive properties of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks.
• Score: 93.67389739906561
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.

Related papers

• Towards a Framework for Openness in Foundation Models: Proceedings from the Columbia Convening on Openness in Artificial Intelligence [18.130525337375985]
  This paper presents a framework for grappling with openness across the AI stack. It summarizes previous work on this topic, analyzes the various potential reasons to pursue openness. It outlines how openness varies in different parts of the AI stack, both at the model and at the system level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T20:35:39Z)
• Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding [56.61738581796362]
  We show that we can still give meaningful bounds on treatment rates to high-risk individuals, even when entirely eliminating or relaxing the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed. This result is of immediate practical interest: we can audit unfair outcomes of existing decision-making systems in a principled manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T21:09:06Z)
• Open-Sourcing Highly Capable Foundation Models: An evaluation of risks, benefits, and alternative methods for pursuing open-source objectives [6.575445633821399]
  Recent decisions by leading AI labs to either open-source their models or to restrict access to their models has sparked debate. This paper offers an examination of the risks and benefits of open-sourcing highly capable foundation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:03:45Z)
• On (assessing) the fairness of risk score models [2.0646127669654826]
  Risk models are of interest for a number of reasons, including the fact that they communicate uncertainty about the potential outcomes to users. We identify the provision of similar value to different groups as a key desideratum for risk score fairness. We introduce a novel calibration error metric that is less sample size-biased than previously proposed metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T12:45:51Z)
• Fairness Increases Adversarial Vulnerability [50.90773979394264]
  This paper shows the existence of a dichotomy between fairness and robustness, and analyzes when achieving fairness decreases the model robustness to adversarial samples. Experiments on non-linear models and different architectures validate the theoretical findings in multiple vision domains. The paper proposes a simple, yet effective, solution to construct models achieving good tradeoffs between fairness and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-21T19:55:35Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Confounder Identification-free Causal Visual Feature Learning [84.28462256571822]
  We propose a novel Confounder Identification-free Causal Visual Feature Learning (CICF) method, which obviates the need for identifying confounders. CICF models the interventions among different samples based on front-door criterion, and then approximates the global-scope intervening effect upon the instance-level interventions. We uncover the relation between CICF and the popular meta-learning strategy MAML, and provide an interpretation of why MAML works from the theoretical perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-26T10:57:47Z)
• On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models [256.61956234436553]
  We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-16T17:50:08Z)
• Financial Data Analysis Using Expert Bayesian Framework For Bankruptcy Prediction [0.0]
  We propose another route of generative modeling using Expert Bayesian framework. The biggest advantage of the proposed framework is an explicit inclusion of expert judgment in the modeling process. The proposed approach is well suited for highly regulated or safety critical applications such as in finance or in medical diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T19:09:02Z)

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.