Safety Cases: How to Justify the Safety of Advanced AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10462v2
• Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:11:46 GMT
• Title: Safety Cases: How to Justify the Safety of Advanced AI Systems
• Authors: Joshua Clymer, Nick Gabrieli, David Krueger, Thomas Larsen,
• Abstract summary: As AI systems become more advanced, companies and regulators will make difficult decisions about whether it is safe to train and deploy them. We propose a framework for organizing a safety case and discuss four categories of arguments to justify safety. We evaluate concrete examples of arguments in each category and outline how arguments could be combined to justify that AI systems are safe to deploy.
• Score: 5.097102520834254
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI systems become more advanced, companies and regulators will make difficult decisions about whether it is safe to train and deploy them. To prepare for these decisions, we investigate how developers could make a 'safety case,' which is a structured rationale that AI systems are unlikely to cause a catastrophe. We propose a framework for organizing a safety case and discuss four categories of arguments to justify safety: total inability to cause a catastrophe, sufficiently strong control measures, trustworthiness despite capability to cause harm, and -- if AI systems become much more powerful -- deference to credible AI advisors. We evaluate concrete examples of arguments in each category and outline how arguments could be combined to justify that AI systems are safe to deploy.

Related papers

• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We argue that shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition is underdeveloped in AI systems. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• Towards evaluations-based safety cases for AI scheming [37.399946932069746]
  We propose three arguments that safety cases could use in relation to scheming. First, developers of frontier AI systems could argue that AI systems are not capable of scheming. Second, one could argue that AI systems are not capable of posing harm through scheming. Third, one could argue that control measures around the AI systems would prevent unacceptable outcomes even if the AI systems intentionally attempted to subvert them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T17:55:29Z)
• Safety cases for frontier AI [0.8987776881291144]
  Safety cases are reports that make a structured argument, supported by evidence, that a system is safe enough in a given operational context. Safety cases are already common in other safety-critical industries such as aviation and nuclear power. We explain why they may also be a useful tool in frontier AI governance, both in industry self-regulation and government regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T22:08:28Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context. We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• Concrete Problems in AI Safety, Revisited [1.4089652912597792]
  As AI systems proliferate in society, the AI community is increasingly preoccupied with the concept of AI Safety. We demonstrate through an analysis of real world cases of such incidents that although current vocabulary captures a range of the encountered issues of AI deployment, an expanded socio-technical framing will be required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T23:38:05Z)
• 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)
• X-Risk Analysis for AI Research [24.78742908726579]
  We provide a guide for how to analyze AI x-risk. First, we review how systems can be made safer today. Next, we discuss strategies for having long-term impacts on the safety of future systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-13T00:22:50Z)
• Safe AI -- How is this Possible? [0.45687771576879593]
  Traditional safety engineering is coming to a turning point moving from deterministic, non-evolving systems operating in well-defined contexts to increasingly autonomous and learning-enabled AI systems acting in largely unpredictable operating contexts. We outline some of underlying challenges of safe AI and suggest a rigorous engineering framework for minimizing uncertainty, thereby increasing confidence, up to tolerable levels, in the safe behavior of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-25T16:32:35Z)

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.