Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities
0
✨
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper introduces a new program of evaluations to assess the dangerous capabilities of AI models, including areas like persuasion, cybersecurity, self-proliferation, and self-reasoning.
- The evaluations were piloted on the Gemini 1.0 models.
- The researchers did not find strong evidence of dangerous capabilities in the models they tested, but identified some early warning signs.
- The goal is to help advance rigorous science around evaluating the potential risks of advanced AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
As AI systems become more capable, it's important to understand what they can and cannot do, especially when it comes to potential dangers. Building on previous work, the researchers in this paper have introduced a new program to evaluate AI models for a range of dangerous capabilities.
They focused on four key areas: the ability to persuade and deceive, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, the potential for self-proliferation, and self-reasoning skills. To test these, they ran a series of evaluations on the Gemini 1.0 models.
The good news is that the researchers didn't find strong evidence of these dangerous capabilities in the models they tested. However, they did identify some early warning signs that merit closer attention.
The researchers' goal is to help develop a rigorous scientific approach to evaluating the risks of advanced AI systems, so that we can be better prepared as the technology continues to progress. This is an important step in ensuring that AI development is done responsibly and with proper safeguards in place.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new program of evaluations aimed at assessing the potential for "dangerous capabilities" in advanced AI models. The researchers focused on four key areas:
- Persuasion and Deception: The ability of the models to persuade or deceive humans, either through language or multimodal outputs.
- Cybersecurity: The models' potential vulnerabilities to attacks that could compromise their security or enable harmful actions.
- Self-Proliferation: The possibility that the models could self-replicate or spread in uncontrolled ways.
- Self-Reasoning: The models' capacity for self-directed reasoning and decision-making that could lead to unintended consequences.
To test these capabilities, the researchers developed a suite of evaluation tasks and piloted them on the Gemini 1.0 models. The Gemini models were chosen due to their high capabilities across multiple modalities.
The results of the evaluations did not reveal strong evidence of dangerous capabilities in the Gemini models. However, the researchers did identify some early warning signs that merit further investigation, such as potential backdoor vulnerabilities or unintended interactions among the models' defenses.
The primary goal of this work is to help advance a rigorous, scientific approach to evaluating the potential risks of advanced AI systems, in preparation for future models with even greater capabilities.
Critical Analysis
The researchers should be commended for taking a thoughtful and proactive approach to evaluating the dangerous capabilities of AI models. By focusing on key areas of concern, such as persuasion, cybersecurity, and self-reasoning, they are helping to identify potential risks before they manifest in real-world scenarios.
However, it's important to note that the evaluation tasks developed in this paper may not capture the full range of dangers that could emerge from highly capable AI systems. As the researchers acknowledge, their tests were limited to the Gemini 1.0 models, and more research is needed to understand how these findings might translate to other AI architectures and future iterations of the technology.
Additionally, the researchers emphasize that their findings only represent "early warning signs" of potential dangers, rather than definitive evidence. More in-depth investigations, including the accurate prediction of rare, safety-critical events, will be necessary to fully understand the risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies.
Overall, this paper represents an important step forward in the ongoing effort to ensure that AI development is done responsibly and with the necessary safeguards in place. By continuing to refine and expand their evaluation framework, the researchers can help the broader community stay one step ahead of the potential risks posed by increasingly advanced AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a new program of evaluations aimed at assessing the potential for dangerous capabilities in advanced AI models. By focusing on areas like persuasion, cybersecurity, self-proliferation, and self-reasoning, the researchers are helping to identify early warning signs of risks that could emerge as AI systems become more capable.
While the evaluations on the Gemini 1.0 models did not uncover strong evidence of these dangerous capabilities, the researchers have laid the groundwork for a more rigorous, scientific approach to evaluating AI risks. As the technology continues to progress, this work will be crucial in ensuring that AI development is done responsibly and with the necessary safeguards in place to protect against potential harms.
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
Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities
Mary Phuong, Matthew Aitchison, Elliot Catt, Sarah Cogan, Alexandre Kaskasoli, Victoria Krakovna, David Lindner, Matthew Rahtz, Yannis Assael, Sarah Hodkinson, Heidi Howard, Tom Lieberum, Ramana Kumar, Maria Abi Raad, Albert Webson, Lewis Ho, Sharon Lin, Sebastian Farquhar, Marcus Hutter, Gregoire Deletang, Anian Ruoss, Seliem El-Sayed, Sasha Brown, Anca Dragan, Rohin Shah, Allan Dafoe, Toby Shevlane
To understand the risks posed by a new AI system, we must understand what it can and cannot do. Building on prior work, we introduce a programme of new dangerous capability evaluations and pilot them on Gemini 1.0 models. Our evaluations cover four areas: (1) persuasion and deception; (2) cyber-security; (3) self-proliferation; and (4) self-reasoning. We do not find evidence of strong dangerous capabilities in the models we evaluated, but we flag early warning signs. Our goal is to help advance a rigorous science of dangerous capability evaluation, in preparation for future models.
Read more4/8/2024
0
Adversaries Can Misuse Combinations of Safe Models
Erik Jones, Anca Dragan, Jacob Steinhardt
Developers try to evaluate whether an AI system can be misused by adversaries before releasing it; for example, they might test whether a model enables cyberoffense, user manipulation, or bioterrorism. In this work, we show that individually testing models for misuse is inadequate; adversaries can misuse combinations of models even when each individual model is safe. The adversary accomplishes this by first decomposing tasks into subtasks, then solving each subtask with the best-suited model. For example, an adversary might solve challenging-but-benign subtasks with an aligned frontier model, and easy-but-malicious subtasks with a weaker misaligned model. We study two decomposition methods: manual decomposition where a human identifies a natural decomposition of a task, and automated decomposition where a weak model generates benign tasks for a frontier model to solve, then uses the solutions in-context to solve the original task. Using these decompositions, we empirically show that adversaries can create vulnerable code, explicit images, python scripts for hacking, and manipulative tweets at much higher rates with combinations of models than either individual model. Our work suggests that even perfectly-aligned frontier systems can enable misuse without ever producing malicious outputs, and that red-teaming efforts should extend beyond single models in isolation.
Read more6/24/2024
➖
0
Prioritizing High-Consequence Biological Capabilities in Evaluations of Artificial Intelligence Models
Jaspreet Pannu, Doni Bloomfield, Alex Zhu, Robert MacKnight, Gabe Gomes, Anita Cicero, Thomas V. Inglesby
As a result of rapidly accelerating AI capabilities, over the past year, national governments and multinational bodies have announced efforts to address safety, security and ethics issues related to AI models. One high priority among these efforts is the mitigation of misuse of AI models. Many biologists have for decades sought to reduce the risks of scientific research that could lead, through accident or misuse, to high-consequence disease outbreaks. Scientists have carefully considered what types of life sciences research have the potential for both benefit and risk (dual-use), especially as scientific advances have accelerated our ability to engineer organisms and create novel variants of pathogens. Here we describe how previous experience and study by scientists and policy professionals of dual-use capabilities in the life sciences can inform risk evaluations of AI models with biological capabilities. We argue that AI model evaluations should prioritize addressing high-consequence risks (those that could cause large-scale harm to the public, such as pandemics), and that these risks should be evaluated prior to model deployment so as to allow potential biosafety and/or biosecurity measures. Scientists' experience with identifying and mitigating dual-use biological risks can help inform new approaches to evaluating biological AI models. Identifying which AI capabilities post the greatest biosecurity and biosafety concerns is necessary in order to establish targeted AI safety evaluation methods, secure these tools against accident and misuse, and avoid impeding immense potential benefits.
Read more7/24/2024
📉
0
The GPT Dilemma: Foundation Models and the Shadow of Dual-Use
Alan Hickey
This paper examines the dual-use challenges of foundation models and the consequent risks they pose for international security. As artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly tested and deployed across both civilian and military sectors, distinguishing between these uses becomes more complex, potentially leading to misunderstandings and unintended escalations among states. The broad capabilities of foundation models lower the cost of repurposing civilian models for military uses, making it difficult to discern another state's intentions behind developing and deploying these models. As military capabilities are increasingly augmented by AI, this discernment is crucial in evaluating the extent to which a state poses a military threat. Consequently, the ability to distinguish between military and civilian applications of these models is key to averting potential military escalations. The paper analyzes this issue through four critical factors in the development cycle of foundation models: model inputs, capabilities, system use cases, and system deployment. This framework helps elucidate the points at which ambiguity between civilian and military applications may arise, leading to potential misperceptions. Using the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as a case study, this paper proposes several strategies to mitigate the associated risks. These include establishing red lines for military competition, enhancing information-sharing protocols, employing foundation models to promote international transparency, and imposing constraints on specific weapon platforms. By managing dual-use risks effectively, these strategies aim to minimize potential escalations and address the trade-offs accompanying increasingly general AI models.
Read more7/31/2024