AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores techniques to improve the safety and reliability of AI systems, even in the face of intentional attempts to subvert their behavior.
- The researchers propose a "control" framework that can detect and mitigate malicious attacks, while maintaining the desired functionality of the AI system.
- Key insights include the use of "red teams" to simulate adversarial attacks, and the design of robust AI architectures that can withstand such attacks.
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on a critical challenge in AI safety - how to ensure AI systems behave reliably and safely, even when faced with intentional attempts to make them misbehave. The researchers propose a "control" framework that can detect and counter such attacks, while preserving the core functionality of the AI system.
At the heart of their approach is the use of "red teams" - groups tasked with trying to subvert the AI system in secret, simulating the tactics a real-world adversary might use. By studying how the red team's attacks unfold, the researchers can design AI architectures and defenses that are robust to these kinds of threats.
For example, the red team might try to "trick" the AI into making unsafe decisions by feeding it carefully crafted inputs. The control framework would then analyze the AI's response and intervene to prevent any harmful actions, all while keeping the system operational.
This focus on proactive defense, rather than just reacting to attacks after the fact, is a key innovation. The researchers aim to stay one step ahead of adversaries, anticipating their tactics and building AI systems that can withstand them. [This connects to the research in false-sense-safety-unsafe-information-leakage-safe, which highlights the importance of robust safety mechanisms in the face of adversarial attacks.]
Ultimately, the goal is to create AI assistants and agents that are reliably safe and beneficial, even in the face of determined efforts to make them misbehave. By combining red team testing, defensive architectures, and active control, the researchers hope to improve the trustworthiness of advanced AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a "control" framework for improving the safety and reliability of AI systems, even when faced with intentional subversion attempts by a "red team" of adversaries.
The key elements of the framework include:
-
Red Team Attacks: The researchers simulate adversarial attacks by tasking a "red team" with finding vulnerabilities in the AI system and developing strategies to exploit them. This allows the research team to study the tactics and techniques used by potential real-world attackers. [This connects to the research in adversaries-can-misuse-combinations-safe-models and large-language-models-can-strategically-deceive-their, which demonstrate the dangers of adversarial attacks on AI systems.]
-
Robust AI Architectures: Based on the insights from the red team attacks, the researchers design AI architectures that are inherently more resilient to subversion. This may involve techniques like redundancy, error-checking, and restricted information flows.
-
Active Control: The control framework actively monitors the AI system's behavior, detects any anomalies or deviations from the intended behavior, and intervenes to mitigate potential harm. This "guardian" approach aims to maintain the core functionality of the AI system while preventing unsafe actions. [This relates to the research in slm-as-guardian-pioneering-ai-safety-small, which explores the use of separate "guardian" models to ensure AI safety.]
By combining these elements, the researchers hope to create AI systems that are more resilient to intentional subversion, while still maintaining their intended functionality and capabilities.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several important limitations and areas for further research:
-
Red Team Limitations: While the red team attacks provide valuable insights, the researchers note that the simulated attacks may not fully capture the tactics and resources of real-world adversaries. Continuing to expand the scope and sophistication of the red team exercises will be important.
-
Architectural Tradeoffs: The robust AI architectures proposed may come with performance or efficiency tradeoffs. The researchers suggest further work is needed to optimize the balance between safety and other system requirements.
-
Scalability Challenges: Applying the control framework to large-scale, complex AI systems may introduce new challenges in terms of computational overhead and coordination. Addressing these scalability issues will be crucial for real-world deployment.
-
Human-in-the-Loop Considerations: The paper does not deeply explore the role of human operators in the control framework. Ensuring effective human-AI collaboration will be essential for maintaining safety and trust.
Overall, this research represents an important step forward in proactively addressing the safety challenges posed by advanced AI systems. By focusing on intentional subversion and adversarial attacks, the researchers are helping to build a more comprehensive approach to AI safety and reliability.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel "control" framework for improving the safety and reliability of AI systems, even in the face of intentional attempts to subvert their behavior. By combining red team testing, robust AI architectures, and active control mechanisms, the researchers aim to create AI assistants and agents that are reliably safe and beneficial.
The insights from this work contribute to the growing field of AI safety research, which is critical as we develop increasingly powerful and sophisticated AI systems. Ensuring the trustworthiness and reliability of these systems will be essential for their widespread adoption and responsible use in society.
While challenges remain, the control framework proposed in this paper represents a promising step towards more secure and dependable AI.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion
Ryan Greenblatt, Buck Shlegeris, Kshitij Sachan, Fabien Roger
As large language models (LLMs) become more powerful and are deployed more autonomously, it will be increasingly important to prevent them from causing harmful outcomes. Researchers have investigated a variety of safety techniques for this purpose, e.g. using models to review the outputs of other models, or red-teaming techniques to surface subtle failure modes. However, researchers have not evaluated whether such techniques still ensure safety if the model is itself intentionally trying to subvert them. In this paper, we develop and evaluate pipelines of safety techniques (protocols) that are robust to intentional subversion. We investigate a scenario in which we want to solve a sequence of programming problems, using access to a powerful but untrusted model (in our case, GPT-4), access to a less powerful trusted model (in our case, GPT-3.5), and limited access to high-quality trusted labor. We investigate protocols that aim to never submit solutions containing backdoors, which we operationalize here as logical errors that are not caught by test cases. We investigate a range of protocols and test each against strategies that the untrusted model could use to subvert them. One protocol is what we call trusted editing. This protocol first asks GPT-4 to write code, and then asks GPT-3.5 to rate the suspiciousness of that code. If the code is below some suspiciousness threshold, it is submitted. Otherwise, GPT-3.5 edits the solution to remove parts that seem suspicious and then submits the edited code. Another protocol is untrusted monitoring. This protocol asks GPT-4 to write code, and then asks another instance of GPT-4 whether the code is backdoored, using various techniques to prevent the GPT-4 instances from colluding. These protocols improve substantially on simple baselines.
Read more7/24/2024
0
Imposter.AI: Adversarial Attacks with Hidden Intentions towards Aligned Large Language Models
Xiao Liu, Liangzhi Li, Tong Xiang, Fuying Ye, Lu Wei, Wangyue Li, Noa Garcia
With the development of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, both their vast applications and potential vulnerabilities have come to the forefront. While developers have integrated multiple safety mechanisms to mitigate their misuse, a risk remains, particularly when models encounter adversarial inputs. This study unveils an attack mechanism that capitalizes on human conversation strategies to extract harmful information from LLMs. We delineate three pivotal strategies: (i) decomposing malicious questions into seemingly innocent sub-questions; (ii) rewriting overtly malicious questions into more covert, benign-sounding ones; (iii) enhancing the harmfulness of responses by prompting models for illustrative examples. Unlike conventional methods that target explicit malicious responses, our approach delves deeper into the nature of the information provided in responses. Through our experiments conducted on GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4, and Llama2, our method has demonstrated a marked efficacy compared to conventional attack methods. In summary, this work introduces a novel attack method that outperforms previous approaches, raising an important question: How to discern whether the ultimate intent in a dialogue is malicious?
Read more7/23/2024
0
A False Sense of Safety: Unsafe Information Leakage in 'Safe' AI Responses
David Glukhov, Ziwen Han, Ilia Shumailov, Vardan Papyan, Nicolas Papernot
Large Language Models (LLMs) are vulnerable to jailbreaks$unicode{x2013}$methods to elicit harmful or generally impermissible outputs. Safety measures are developed and assessed on their effectiveness at defending against jailbreak attacks, indicating a belief that safety is equivalent to robustness. We assert that current defense mechanisms, such as output filters and alignment fine-tuning, are, and will remain, fundamentally insufficient for ensuring model safety. These defenses fail to address risks arising from dual-intent queries and the ability to composite innocuous outputs to achieve harmful goals. To address this critical gap, we introduce an information-theoretic threat model called inferential adversaries who exploit impermissible information leakage from model outputs to achieve malicious goals. We distinguish these from commonly studied security adversaries who only seek to force victim models to generate specific impermissible outputs. We demonstrate the feasibility of automating inferential adversaries through question decomposition and response aggregation. To provide safety guarantees, we define an information censorship criterion for censorship mechanisms, bounding the leakage of impermissible information. We propose a defense mechanism which ensures this bound and reveal an intrinsic safety-utility trade-off. Our work provides the first theoretically grounded understanding of the requirements for releasing safe LLMs and the utility costs involved.
Read more7/4/2024
0
Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocols
Charlie Griffin, Louis Thomson, Buck Shlegeris, Alessandro Abate
To evaluate the safety and usefulness of deployment protocols for untrusted AIs, AI Control uses a red-teaming exercise played between a protocol designer and an adversary. This paper introduces AI-Control Games, a formal decision-making model of the red-teaming exercise as a multi-objective, partially observable, stochastic game. We also introduce methods for finding optimal protocols in AI-Control Games, by reducing them to a set of zero-sum partially observable stochastic games. We apply our formalism to model, evaluate and synthesise protocols for deploying untrusted language models as programming assistants, focusing on Trusted Monitoring protocols, which use weaker language models and limited human assistance. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our formalism by showcasing improvements over empirical studies in existing settings, evaluating protocols in new settings, and analysing how modelling assumptions affect the safety and usefulness of protocols.
Read more9/14/2024