A Grading Rubric for AI Safety Frameworks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08751v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 12:01:55 GMT
• Title: A Grading Rubric for AI Safety Frameworks
• Authors: Jide Alaga, Jonas Schuett, Markus Anderljung,
• Abstract summary: Major players like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind have already published their AI safety frameworks. This paper proposes a grading rubric to enable governments, academia, and civil society to pass judgment on these frameworks.
• Score: 1.053373860696675
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Over the past year, artificial intelligence (AI) companies have been increasingly adopting AI safety frameworks. These frameworks outline how companies intend to keep the potential risks associated with developing and deploying frontier AI systems to an acceptable level. Major players like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind have already published their frameworks, while another 13 companies have signaled their intent to release similar frameworks by February 2025. Given their central role in AI companies' efforts to identify and address unacceptable risks from their systems, AI safety frameworks warrant significant scrutiny. To enable governments, academia, and civil society to pass judgment on these frameworks, this paper proposes a grading rubric. The rubric consists of seven evaluation criteria and 21 indicators that concretize the criteria. Each criterion can be graded on a scale from A (gold standard) to F (substandard). The paper also suggests three methods for applying the rubric: surveys, Delphi studies, and audits. The purpose of the grading rubric is to enable nuanced comparisons between frameworks, identify potential areas of improvement, and promote a race to the top in responsible AI development.

Related papers

• 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)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Ethical and Scalable Automation: A Governance and Compliance Framework for Business Applications [0.0]
  This paper introduces a framework ensuring that AI must be ethical, controllable, viable, and desirable. Different case studies validate this framework by integrating AI in both academic and practical environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T12:39:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policies [80.90138009539004]
  AIR-Bench 2024 is the first AI safety benchmark aligned with emerging government regulations and company policies. It decomposes 8 government regulations and 16 company policies into a four-tiered safety taxonomy with granular risk categories in the lowest tier. We evaluate leading language models on AIR-Bench 2024, uncovering insights into their alignment with specified safety concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T21:16:48Z)
• 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)
• Trust, Accountability, and Autonomy in Knowledge Graph-based AI for Self-determination [1.4305544869388402]
  Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have emerged as fundamental platforms for powering intelligent decision-making. The integration of KGs with neuronal learning is currently a topic of active research. This paper conceptualises the foundational topics and research pillars to support KG-based AI for self-determination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T12:51:52Z)
• APPRAISE: a governance framework for innovation with AI systems [0.0]
  The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) is the first serious legislative attempt to contain the harmful effects of AI systems. This paper proposes a governance framework for AI innovation. The framework bridges the gap between strategic variables and responsible value creation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-26T12:20:07Z)
• Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence -- AI Assessment Catalog [0.0]
  It is clear that AI and business models based on it can only reach their full potential if AI applications are developed according to high quality standards. The issue of the trustworthiness of AI applications is crucial and is the subject of numerous major publications. This AI assessment catalog addresses exactly this point and is intended for two target groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-20T08:07:18Z)
• 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)

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.