Affirmative safety: An approach to risk management for high-risk AI

Overview

• Prominent AI experts have suggested that companies developing high-risk AI systems should be required to demonstrate the safety of their systems before deployment.
• This paper aims to expand on this idea and explore the implications for risk management.
• The authors propose that entities developing or deploying high-risk AI systems should be required to present evidence of "affirmative safety" - a proactive case that their activities keep risks below acceptable thresholds.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses the idea that companies developing powerful AI systems should have to prove these systems are safe before being allowed to create or use them. The authors want to explore what this would look like in practice. They suggest that companies should have to provide evidence that their AI systems and practices keep risks at an acceptable level. This is called an "affirmative safety case."

To illustrate what an affirmative safety case might include, the paper looks at different types of technical evidence and operational evidence that companies could provide. Technical evidence could show things like how the AI system behaves, what's going on inside it, and how it was developed. Operational evidence could demonstrate the company's security practices, safety culture, and emergency response plans.

The goal is to contribute to ongoing discussions about the security risks of advanced AI and explore regulatory approaches to address these risks, such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by highlighting the global security risks from AI that have been acknowledged by AI experts and world governments. It then briefly describes principles of risk management from other high-risk fields, such as nuclear safety.

The core proposal is a risk management approach for advanced AI in which model developers must provide evidence that their activities keep certain risks below regulator-set thresholds. This "affirmative safety case" would include both technical and operational evidence.

On the technical side, the paper discusses three types of evidence:

1. Behavioral evidence - data on the outputs and behaviors of the AI system
2. Cognitive evidence - insights into the internal workings and decision-making processes of the AI system
3. Developmental evidence - information about the AI system's training process and how it was developed

On the operational side, the paper suggests examples of organizational practices that could contribute to an affirmative safety case, such as information security practices, a strong safety culture, and robust emergency response capacity.

Finally, the paper compares this approach to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thoughtful and comprehensive framework for how companies could demonstrate the safety of their high-risk AI systems before deployment. The authors acknowledge that this is a complex challenge, but outline concrete technical and operational evidence that could be part of an affirmative safety case.

One potential limitation is that the paper does not delve into the practical challenges of implementing such a framework, such as how to define acceptable risk thresholds or how to ensure the validity and transparency of the evidence provided by companies. There may also be questions about how this approach would interface with existing AI governance and regulatory structures.

Additionally, the paper does not address potential tensions between the desire for rigorous safety validation and the pace of AI innovation and development. Striking the right balance will be crucial.

Overall, the authors make a compelling case for the need to proactively manage the risks of advanced AI systems, and their proposed framework represents a valuable contribution to this important discussion.

Conclusion

This paper puts forth a novel approach for ensuring the safety of high-risk AI systems before they are developed or deployed. By requiring companies to present an "affirmative safety case" that demonstrates their activities keep risks below acceptable thresholds, the authors aim to address the global security threats posed by advanced AI.

The technical and operational evidence outlined in the paper provides a useful roadmap for how such safety cases could be constructed. While challenges around implementation and balancing safety with innovation remain, the authors' framework represents an important step forward in managing the extreme risks of AI amid rapid progress in the field.

Overall, this research contributes to the vital ongoing discussions around AI risk management and strategies for ensuring the safe development and deployment of powerful AI systems that will have significant implications for global security.