Benchmark Early and Red Team Often: A Framework for Assessing and Managing Dual-Use Hazards of AI Foundation Models

Overview

• Concern that adversaries may use cutting-edge AI foundation models for dangerous attacks like chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN), cyber, or other attacks
• Two methods to identify models with potential dual-use capability:
  1. Open benchmarks - low-cost but accuracy limited by need to omit security-sensitive details
  2. Closed red team evaluations - higher-cost but can incorporate sensitive details for higher accuracy
• Propose combining both methods to leverage advantages of each

Plain English Explanation

Cutting-edge AI models can be very powerful, but there is a concern that bad actors could misuse them to cause serious harm, like making chemical weapons or launching cyber attacks. The researchers propose two ways to identify which AI models might be dangerous in this way:

1. Open benchmarks: These are public tests that measure an AI model's capabilities. They are relatively cheap to run, but they have to avoid including anything too sensitive, so the results may not be very accurate when it comes to identifying dangerous dual-use potential.

2. Closed red team evaluations: These involve having a team of experts in things like CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) threats and cybersecurity thoroughly test the AI models in secret. This can give more accurate results, but it's also more expensive.

The researchers suggest using a combination of these two methods. They think that if the results from the open benchmarks and the closed red team evaluations tend to match up, that would be a good sign that the open benchmarks could be used as a quick, low-cost way to get a sense of an AI model's potential for misuse. And if a model scores highly on the open benchmark for dual-use potential, that would be a red flag to do the more in-depth closed evaluation.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a research and risk-management approach that combines open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations to assess the dual-use potential of cutting-edge AI foundation models.

Open benchmarks, based on publicly available questions and answers, are a low-cost way to measure a model's capabilities, but their accuracy is limited by the need to avoid including security-sensitive details. In contrast, closed red team evaluations by CBRN and cyber security experts can achieve higher accuracy by incorporating sensitive information, but they are more expensive to run.

The researchers suggest that one or more groups of researchers with access to a range of near-frontier and frontier foundation models should run those models through both types of evaluations. By analyzing the correlation between the models' scores on the open benchmarks and the closed red team assessments, the researchers expect to find a substantial correlation.

If this is the case, it would mean that the open benchmarks could be used frequently during model development as a quick, low-cost way to assess dual-use potential. And if a model scores highly on the open benchmark, that would be a signal to perform more in-depth closed red team evaluations on that specific model.

The paper also discusses potential limitations and mitigations, such as the risk of model developers trying to game the open benchmarks by including benchmark test data in their training.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge some of the key limitations of their proposed approach. Using open benchmarks means sacrificing accuracy by avoiding security-sensitive information, while closed red team evaluations are more costly. There is also the risk that model developers could try to game the open benchmarks.

Another potential issue is the scope of the evaluations. The paper focuses on CBRN and cyber threats, but there may be other ways that advanced AI models could be misused that are not covered. The researchers may want to consider expanding the evaluation to a broader range of potential misuse cases.

Additionally, the paper does not address the challenge of actually implementing this dual-use evaluation process in practice. Coordinating multiple research groups to run the assessments and analyze the results could be logistically complex. The researchers may need to provide more details on how this could be organized and managed effectively.

Overall, the core idea of combining open and closed evaluation methods is sound, and the researchers have identified an important challenge in assessing the dual-use potential of cutting-edge AI models. But there are still some practical and conceptual hurdles that would need to be addressed to make this approach viable.

Conclusion

This paper proposes a research and risk-management approach to identify cutting-edge AI foundation models that may have dangerous dual-use capabilities, such as the potential to be misused for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or cyber attacks.

The key idea is to leverage a combination of open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations to assess dual-use potential. If the results from these two methods are substantially correlated, it could allow the use of the cheaper and more accessible open benchmarks as an initial screening tool, with high-scoring models then subjected to more in-depth closed assessments.

While the paper identifies important limitations and challenges, the general approach of combining complementary evaluation methods seems like a promising way to balance the need for thorough security assessments with the practical constraints of cost and accessibility. Continued research and experimentation in this area could lead to more effective ways to mitigate the risks of advanced AI being used for malicious purposes.