Holistic Safety and Responsibility Evaluations of Advanced AI Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14068v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 10:26:49 GMT
• Title: Holistic Safety and Responsibility Evaluations of Advanced AI Models
• Authors: Laura Weidinger, Joslyn Barnhart, Jenny Brennan, Christina Butterfield, Susie Young, Will Hawkins, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Ramona Comanescu, Oscar Chang, Mikel Rodriguez, Jennifer Beroshi, Dawn Bloxwich, Lev Proleev, Jilin Chen, Sebastian Farquhar, Lewis Ho, Iason Gabriel, Allan Dafoe, William Isaac,
• Abstract summary: Safety and responsibility evaluations of advanced AI models are a critical but developing field of research and practice. In the development of Google DeepMind's advanced AI models, we innovated on and applied a broad set of approaches to safety evaluation.
• Score: 18.34510620901674
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Safety and responsibility evaluations of advanced AI models are a critical but developing field of research and practice. In the development of Google DeepMind's advanced AI models, we innovated on and applied a broad set of approaches to safety evaluation. In this report, we summarise and share elements of our evolving approach as well as lessons learned for a broad audience. Key lessons learned include: First, theoretical underpinnings and frameworks are invaluable to organise the breadth of risk domains, modalities, forms, metrics, and goals. Second, theory and practice of safety evaluation development each benefit from collaboration to clarify goals, methods and challenges, and facilitate the transfer of insights between different stakeholders and disciplines. Third, similar key methods, lessons, and institutions apply across the range of concerns in responsibility and safety - including established and emerging harms. For this reason it is important that a wide range of actors working on safety evaluation and safety research communities work together to develop, refine and implement novel evaluation approaches and best practices, rather than operating in silos. The report concludes with outlining the clear need to rapidly advance the science of evaluations, to integrate new evaluations into the development and governance of AI, to establish scientifically-grounded norms and standards, and to promote a robust evaluation ecosystem.

Related papers

• SoK: Unifying Cybersecurity and Cybersafety of Multimodal Foundation Models with an Information Theory Approach [58.93030774141753]
  Multimodal foundation models (MFMs) represent a significant advancement in artificial intelligence. This paper conceptualizes cybersafety and cybersecurity in the context of multimodal learning. We present a comprehensive Systematization of Knowledge (SoK) to unify these concepts in MFMs, identifying key threats.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-17T23:06:20Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework [4.41358655687435]
  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential. evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved. This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:52:22Z)
• Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition [70.60872754129832]
  First NeurIPS competition on unlearning sought to stimulate the development of novel algorithms. Nearly 1,200 teams from across the world participated. We analyze top solutions and delve into discussions on benchmarking unlearning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:58:00Z)
• Quantifying AI Vulnerabilities: A Synthesis of Complexity, Dynamical Systems, and Game Theory [0.0]
  We propose a novel approach that introduces three metrics: System Complexity Index (SCI), Lyapunov Exponent for AI Stability (LEAIS), and Nash Equilibrium Robustness (NER) SCI quantifies the inherent complexity of an AI system, LEAIS captures its stability and sensitivity to perturbations, and NER evaluates its strategic robustness against adversarial manipulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-07T07:05:59Z)
• Safe and Robust Reinforcement Learning: Principles and Practice [0.0]
  Reinforcement Learning has shown remarkable success in solving relatively complex tasks. The deployment of RL systems in real-world scenarios poses significant challenges related to safety and robustness. This paper explores the main dimensions of the safe and robust RL landscape, encompassing algorithmic, ethical, and practical considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T13:14:29Z)
• The Art of Defending: A Systematic Evaluation and Analysis of LLM Defense Strategies on Safety and Over-Defensiveness [56.174255970895466]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play an increasingly pivotal role in natural language processing applications. This paper presents Safety and Over-Defensiveness Evaluation (SODE) benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T17:37:06Z)
• Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems [13.546708226350963]
  Generative AI systems produce a range of risks. To ensure the safety of generative AI systems, these risks must be evaluated. We propose a three-layered framework that takes a structured, sociotechnical approach to evaluating these risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T14:13:58Z)
• Towards Safer Generative Language Models: A Survey on Safety Risks, Evaluations, and Improvements [76.80453043969209]
  This survey presents a framework for safety research pertaining to large models. We begin by introducing safety issues of wide concern, then delve into safety evaluation methods for large models. We explore the strategies for enhancing large model safety from training to deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-18T09:32:55Z)
• L2Explorer: A Lifelong Reinforcement Learning Assessment Environment [49.40779372040652]
  Reinforcement learning solutions tend to generalize poorly when exposed to new tasks outside of the data distribution they are trained on. We introduce a framework for continual reinforcement-learning development and assessment using Lifelong Learning Explorer (L2Explorer) L2Explorer is a new, Unity-based, first-person 3D exploration environment that can be continuously reconfigured to generate a range of tasks and task variants structured into complex evaluation curricula.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T19:20:26Z)

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.