The GPT Dilemma: Foundation Models and the Shadow of Dual-Use
0
📉
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the dual-use challenges of foundation models and the associated risks for international security.
- As AI models are increasingly used in 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 make it easier to repurpose civilian models for military uses, making it difficult to discern another state's intentions.
- The ability to distinguish between military and civilian applications of these models is crucial in evaluating the extent of a state's military threat and averting potential escalations.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at the challenges that come with foundation models, which are advanced AI systems that can be used for many different tasks. As these models become more widespread in both civilian and military applications, it becomes harder to tell them apart.
This is a problem because if one country can't clearly see that another country is using a foundation model for civilian purposes, they may think it's being used for military purposes instead. This could lead to misunderstandings and tensions between countries, potentially causing unintended escalations.
The paper explains that foundation models have such broad capabilities that it's easy to take a model developed for civilian use and adapt it for military use. This makes it difficult for countries to know what another country's true intentions are when they develop and deploy these models.
Being able to distinguish between military and civilian uses of foundation models is crucial for understanding how much of a military threat a country poses. Without this ability, there's a risk of misjudging a country's military capabilities and accidentally escalating tensions.
Technical Explanation
The paper analyzes the dual-use challenges of foundation models through four critical factors in their development cycle: model inputs, capabilities, system use cases, and system deployment.
This framework helps identify the points at which ambiguity between civilian and military applications may arise, leading to potential misperceptions. The paper uses the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty as a case study to propose strategies for mitigating the associated risks.
These strategies include:
- Establishing red lines for military competition
- Enhancing information-sharing protocols
- Employing foundation models to promote international transparency
- Imposing constraints on specific weapon platforms
By managing the dual-use risks effectively, the paper aims to minimize potential escalations and address the trade-offs accompanying increasingly general AI models.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges the limitations in clearly distinguishing between civilian and military applications of foundation models, given their broad capabilities. It recognizes the challenges in establishing robust protocols for information-sharing and transparency, especially as these models continue to advance.
One potential issue the paper does not fully address is the possibility of unintended consequences or misuse of foundation models, even within civilian contexts. There may be concerns about the societal impacts of these models, which could also have implications for international security.
Additionally, the paper's reliance on the INF Treaty as a case study may limit the generalizability of the proposed strategies to other international security frameworks and contexts. Further research may be needed to explore the applicability of these solutions in a broader range of scenarios.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the critical challenge of dual-use foundation models and their potential to exacerbate tensions and misunderstandings between states. By analyzing the key factors in the development cycle of these models, the paper proposes strategies to mitigate the associated risks and promote greater transparency and cooperation.
As AI systems become more advanced and ubiquitous, the ability to distinguish between civilian and military applications will be crucial for maintaining international stability and security. The paper's framework and recommendations provide a valuable starting point for addressing these complex issues and exploring ways to manage the trade-offs inherent in the development of increasingly capable foundation models.
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
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
0
Defense Priorities in the Open-Source AI Debate: A Preliminary Assessment
Masao Dahlgren
A spirited debate is taking place over the regulation of open foundation models: artificial intelligence models whose underlying architectures and parameters are made public and can be inspected, modified, and run by end users. Proposed limits on releasing open foundation models may have significant defense industrial impacts. If model training is a form of defense production, these impacts deserve further scrutiny. Preliminary evidence suggests that an open foundation model ecosystem could benefit the U.S. Department of Defense's supplier diversity, sustainment, cybersecurity, and innovation priorities. Follow-on analyses should quantify impacts on acquisition cost and supply chain security.
Read more8/20/2024
🤖
0
Benchmark Early and Red Team Often: A Framework for Assessing and Managing Dual-Use Hazards of AI Foundation Models
Anthony M. Barrett, Krystal Jackson, Evan R. Murphy, Nada Madkour, Jessica Newman
A concern about cutting-edge or frontier AI foundation models is that an adversary may use the models for preparing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, (CBRN), cyber, or other attacks. At least two methods can identify foundation models with potential dual-use capability; each has advantages and disadvantages: A. Open benchmarks (based on openly available questions and answers), which are low-cost but accuracy-limited by the need to omit security-sensitive details; and B. Closed red team evaluations (based on private evaluation by CBRN and cyber experts), which are higher-cost but can achieve higher accuracy by incorporating sensitive details. We propose a research and risk-management approach using a combination of methods including both open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations, in a way that leverages advantages of both methods. We recommend that one or more groups of researchers with sufficient resources and access to a range of near-frontier and frontier foundation models run a set of foundation models through dual-use capability evaluation benchmarks and red team evaluations, then analyze the resulting sets of models' scores on benchmark and red team evaluations to see how correlated those are. If, as we expect, there is substantial correlation between the dual-use potential benchmark scores and the red team evaluation scores, then implications include the following: The open benchmarks should be used frequently during foundation model development as a quick, low-cost measure of a model's dual-use potential; and if a particular model gets a high score on the dual-use potential benchmark, then more in-depth red team assessments of that model's dual-use capability should be performed. We also discuss limitations and mitigations for our approach, e.g., if model developers try to game benchmarks by including a version of benchmark test data in a model's training data.
Read more5/21/2024
🏅
0
Mapping the individual, social, and biospheric impacts of Foundation Models
Andr'es Dom'inguez Hern'andez, Shyam Krishna, Antonella Maia Perini, Michael Katell, SJ Bennett, Ann Borda, Youmna Hashem, Semeli Hadjiloizou, Sabeehah Mahomed, Smera Jayadeva, Mhairi Aitken, David Leslie
Responding to the rapid roll-out and large-scale commercialization of foundation models, large language models, and generative AI, an emerging body of work is shedding light on the myriad impacts these technologies are having across society. Such research is expansive, ranging from the production of discriminatory, fake and toxic outputs, and privacy and copyright violations, to the unjust extraction of labor and natural resources. The same has not been the case in some of the most prominent AI governance initiatives in the global north like the UK's AI Safety Summit and the G7's Hiroshima process, which have influenced much of the international dialogue around AI governance. Despite the wealth of cautionary tales and evidence of algorithmic harm, there has been an ongoing over-emphasis within the AI governance discourse on technical matters of safety and global catastrophic or existential risks. This narrowed focus has tended to draw attention away from very pressing social and ethical challenges posed by the current brute-force industrialization of AI applications. To address such a visibility gap between real-world consequences and speculative risks, this paper offers a critical framework to account for the social, political, and environmental dimensions of foundation models and generative AI. We identify 14 categories of risks and harms and map them according to their individual, social, and biospheric impacts. We argue that this novel typology offers an integrative perspective to address the most urgent negative impacts of foundation models and their downstream applications. We conclude with recommendations on how this typology could be used to inform technical and normative interventions to advance responsible AI.
Read more7/25/2024