Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09221v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 12:37:13 GMT
• Title: Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects
• Authors: John Burden,
• Abstract summary: This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration.
• Score: 8.086002368038658
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As AI systems appear to exhibit ever-increasing capability and generality, assessing their true potential and safety becomes paramount. This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate, heightening the risks and potential hazards associated with AI. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration in our approaches, which have a longstanding tradition of assessing general intelligence across diverse species. We will identify some of the difficulties that need to be overcome when applying cognitively-inspired approaches to general-purpose AI systems and also analyse the emerging area of "Evals". The paper concludes by identifying promising research pathways that could refine AI evaluation, advancing it towards a rigorous scientific domain that contributes to the development of safe AI systems.

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 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)
• 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)
• Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness [53.91018508439669]
  The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:29:42Z)
• 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)
• AI Hazard Management: A framework for the systematic management of root causes for AI risks [0.0]
  This paper introduces the AI Hazard Management (AIHM) framework. It provides a structured process to systematically identify, assess, and treat AI hazards. It builds upon an AI hazard list from a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T15:55:50Z)
• Quantitative AI Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges [9.262092738841979]
  AI-based systems are increasingly being leveraged to provide value to organizations, individuals, and society. Risks have led to proposed regulations, litigation, and general societal concerns. This paper explores the concept of a quantitative AI Risk Assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-13T21:47:25Z)
• Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices [44.67324097900778]
  Many current AI systems were found vulnerable to imperceptible attacks, biased against underrepresented groups, lacking in user privacy protection, etc. In this review, we strive to provide AI practitioners a comprehensive guide towards building trustworthy AI systems. To unify the current fragmented approaches towards trustworthy AI, we propose a systematic approach that considers the entire lifecycle of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-04T03:20:39Z)
• Know Your Model (KYM): Increasing Trust in AI and Machine Learning [4.93786553432578]
  We analyze each element of trustworthiness and provide a set of 20 guidelines that can be leveraged to ensure optimal AI functionality. The guidelines help ensure that trustworthiness is provable and can be demonstrated, they are implementation agnostic, and they can be applied to any AI system in any sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T14:08:22Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)
• AAAI FSS-19: Human-Centered AI: Trustworthiness of AI Models and Data Proceedings [8.445274192818825]
  It is crucial for predictive models to be uncertainty-aware and yield trustworthy predictions. The focus of this symposium was on AI systems to improve data quality and technical robustness and safety. submissions from broadly defined areas also discussed approaches addressing requirements such as explainable models, human trust and ethical aspects of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T15:30:29Z)

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.