Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocols
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores models and protocols for evaluating the safety of AI systems during deployment.
- It presents an example scenario and protocol for assessing the safety of an AI agent's actions.
- The paper provides a technical explanation of the proposed protocol and a critical analysis of its potential strengths and limitations.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at ways to evaluate the safety of AI systems when they are put into use. It describes a hypothetical example scenario where an AI agent is deployed to perform a task, and a protocol for assessing whether the agent's actions are safe and aligned with the intended goals.
The core idea is to model the deployment of the AI agent as a "game" between the agent and an evaluator who is trying to ensure the agent behaves safely. The evaluator can take certain actions (like adjusting the agent's rewards or constraints) to try to steer the agent towards safe behavior. The paper analyzes how effective this game-based approach could be at promoting safe and responsible AI.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents an example scenario where an AI agent is deployed to a simulated environment to perform a task. The agent has certain goals and constraints, and must navigate the environment to complete its objectives.
The researchers model the deployment as a game between the agent and an evaluator. The evaluator can take actions like adjusting the agent's rewards or modifying the environment to try to ensure the agent behaves safely and achieves the intended goals. The paper analyzes how effective different game-based protocols can be at promoting safe and responsible behavior from the AI agent.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a novel framework for evaluating AI safety, but acknowledges some key limitations. The game-based approach relies on the evaluator having full information about the agent's goals and constraints, which may not always be realistic. There are also open questions about how to design effective game strategies and how to scale the approach to more complex AI systems.
Additionally, the paper focuses solely on the deployment phase of the AI system's lifecycle. Ensuring safety during development and training is also critically important, and is not addressed here. Further research is needed to develop holistic safety frameworks that span the full lifecycle of AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper presents an innovative approach to evaluating the safety of AI systems during deployment. By modeling the deployment as an interactive "game" between the AI agent and a safety evaluator, the researchers aim to develop protocols that can promote safe and responsible behavior from advanced AI agents.
While the proposed framework has merit, the authors acknowledge key limitations and areas for further research. Developing comprehensive safety evaluation techniques remains an important challenge as AI systems grow more powerful and influential.
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
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
🤖
0
Safeguarding AI Agents: Developing and Analyzing Safety Architectures
Ishaan Domkundwar, Mukunda N S, Ishaan Bhola
AI agents, specifically powered by large language models, have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in various applications where precision and efficacy are necessary. However, these agents come with inherent risks, including the potential for unsafe or biased actions, vulnerability to adversarial attacks, lack of transparency, and tendency to generate hallucinations. As AI agents become more prevalent in critical sectors of the industry, the implementation of effective safety protocols becomes increasingly important. This paper addresses the critical need for safety measures in AI systems, especially ones that collaborate with human teams. We propose and evaluate three frameworks to enhance safety protocols in AI agent systems: an LLM-powered input-output filter, a safety agent integrated within the system, and a hierarchical delegation-based system with embedded safety checks. Our methodology involves implementing these frameworks and testing them against a set of unsafe agentic use cases, providing a comprehensive evaluation of their effectiveness in mitigating risks associated with AI agent deployment. We conclude that these frameworks can significantly strengthen the safety and security of AI agent systems, minimizing potential harmful actions or outputs. Our work contributes to the ongoing effort to create safe and reliable AI applications, particularly in automated operations, and provides a foundation for developing robust guardrails to ensure the responsible use of AI agents in real-world applications.
Read more9/16/2024
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
Holistic Safety and Responsibility Evaluations of Advanced AI Models
Laura Weidinger, Joslyn Barnhart, Jenny Brennan, Christina Butterfield, Susie Young, Will Hawkins, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Ramona Comanescu, Oscar Chang, Mikel Rodriguez, Jennifer Beroshi, Dawn Bloxwich, Lev Proleev, Jilin Chen, Sebastian Farquhar, Lewis Ho, Iason Gabriel, Allan Dafoe, William Isaac
Safety and responsibility evaluations of advanced AI models are a critical but developing field of research and practice. In the development of Google DeepMind's advanced AI models, we innovated on and applied a broad set of approaches to safety evaluation. In this report, we summarise and share elements of our evolving approach as well as lessons learned for a broad audience. Key lessons learned include: First, theoretical underpinnings and frameworks are invaluable to organise the breadth of risk domains, modalities, forms, metrics, and goals. Second, theory and practice of safety evaluation development each benefit from collaboration to clarify goals, methods and challenges, and facilitate the transfer of insights between different stakeholders and disciplines. Third, similar key methods, lessons, and institutions apply across the range of concerns in responsibility and safety - including established and emerging harms. For this reason it is important that a wide range of actors working on safety evaluation and safety research communities work together to develop, refine and implement novel evaluation approaches and best practices, rather than operating in silos. The report concludes with outlining the clear need to rapidly advance the science of evaluations, to integrate new evaluations into the development and governance of AI, to establish scientifically-grounded norms and standards, and to promote a robust evaluation ecosystem.
Read more4/23/2024