The Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing
0
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the human factor in AI red teaming, drawing insights from social and collaborative computing
- Highlights the importance of considering labor, fairness, well-being, security, and ethics in the context of AI red teaming
- Emphasizes the need for a multidisciplinary approach that integrates perspectives from various fields
Plain English Explanation
This paper examines the role of humans in the process of "red teaming" AI systems - that is, the practice of rigorously testing and challenging AI to identify potential vulnerabilities or unintended behaviors. The researchers argue that this process should not be viewed solely as a technical exercise, but rather as one that must consider the human elements involved, such as labor, fairness, well-being, security, and ethics.
The paper draws insights from the field of social and collaborative computing, which studies how people interact with technology and with each other in the context of technology-mediated tasks. By applying these insights to the domain of AI red teaming, the researchers highlight the importance of taking a multidisciplinary approach that goes beyond just the technical aspects of the problem.
For example, the paper discusses the potential impacts of AI red teaming on the well-being and job security of the human workers involved, and the need to ensure that the process is fair and equitable. It also touches on the security implications of AI red teaming, and the ethical considerations around the use of AI systems that may have been subjected to this process.
Overall, the paper underscores the idea that the "human factor" must be a central consideration in the development and deployment of AI systems, and that a holistic, multidisciplinary approach is necessary to ensure that these technologies are designed and used in a responsible and beneficial manner.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the human factors involved in the process of AI red teaming, which is the practice of rigorously testing and challenging AI systems to identify potential vulnerabilities or unintended behaviors. The researchers draw insights from the field of social and collaborative computing, which examines how people interact with technology and with each other in the context of technology-mediated tasks.
The paper highlights several key themes that should be considered in the context of AI red teaming, including labor, fairness, well-being, security, and ethics. For example, the researchers discuss the potential impacts of AI red teaming on the job security and well-being of the human workers involved, and the need to ensure that the process is fair and equitable. They also touch on the security implications of AI red teaming, and the ethical considerations around the use of AI systems that may have been subjected to this process.
The researchers argue that a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to address these issues, drawing on insights from fields such as human-computer interaction, organizational psychology, and computer science. They suggest that by integrating these diverse perspectives, researchers and practitioners can develop a more holistic understanding of the human factors involved in AI red teaming and design more responsible and effective AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the importance of considering the human factor in the context of AI red teaming. The researchers' emphasis on labor, fairness, well-being, security, and ethics is well-justified, as these issues are often overlooked in the pursuit of purely technical solutions.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into specific strategies or methods for addressing these human factors. While it provides a high-level framework for a multidisciplinary approach, more detailed guidance on how to implement such an approach in practice would have been valuable.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or limitations that may arise when trying to integrate diverse perspectives from different fields. Successful interdisciplinary collaboration can be notoriously difficult, and the paper could have benefited from a more nuanced discussion of the barriers and potential solutions.
Finally, the paper could have explored more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate the implications of the human factor in AI red teaming. While the theoretical framework is well-developed, more practical illustrations would have strengthened the paper's overall impact and relevance.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the importance of the human factor in AI red teaming. However, further research and practical guidance would be needed to fully address the complexities and challenges involved in this domain.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the critical importance of considering the human factor in the process of AI red teaming. By drawing insights from the field of social and collaborative computing, the researchers emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach that integrates perspectives from various disciplines, including labor, fairness, well-being, security, and ethics.
The paper underscores the idea that AI red teaming should not be viewed solely as a technical exercise, but rather as one that must take into account the impacts on the human workers involved, as well as the broader societal implications. By adopting a more holistic and responsible approach to AI red teaming, researchers and practitioners can help ensure that these technologies are developed and deployed in a way that is both effective and beneficial to all stakeholders.
Overall, this paper serves as a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse around the responsible development and use of AI systems, and it will likely inspire further research and discussion in this important area.
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 Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing
Alice Qian Zhang, Ryland Shaw, Jacy Reese Anthis, Ashlee Milton, Emily Tseng, Jina Suh, Lama Ahmad, Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, Julian Posada, Benjamin Shestakofsky, Sarah T. Roberts, Mary L. Gray
Rapid progress in general-purpose AI has sparked significant interest in red teaming, a practice of adversarial testing originating in military and cybersecurity applications. AI red teaming raises many questions about the human factor, such as how red teamers are selected, biases and blindspots in how tests are conducted, and harmful content's psychological effects on red teamers. A growing body of HCI and CSCW literature examines related practices-including data labeling, content moderation, and algorithmic auditing. However, few, if any have investigated red teaming itself. Future studies may explore topics ranging from fairness to mental health and other areas of potential harm. We aim to facilitate a community of researchers and practitioners who can begin to meet these challenges with creativity, innovation, and thoughtful reflection.
Read more9/12/2024
🔄
0
Red-Teaming for Generative AI: Silver Bullet or Security Theater?
Michael Feffer, Anusha Sinha, Wesley Hanwen Deng, Zachary C. Lipton, Hoda Heidari
In response to rising concerns surrounding the safety, security, and trustworthiness of Generative AI (GenAI) models, practitioners and regulators alike have pointed to AI red-teaming as a key component of their strategies for identifying and mitigating these risks. However, despite AI red-teaming's central role in policy discussions and corporate messaging, significant questions remain about what precisely it means, what role it can play in regulation, and how it relates to conventional red-teaming practices as originally conceived in the field of cybersecurity. In this work, we identify recent cases of red-teaming activities in the AI industry and conduct an extensive survey of relevant research literature to characterize the scope, structure, and criteria for AI red-teaming practices. Our analysis reveals that prior methods and practices of AI red-teaming diverge along several axes, including the purpose of the activity (which is often vague), the artifact under evaluation, the setting in which the activity is conducted (e.g., actors, resources, and methods), and the resulting decisions it informs (e.g., reporting, disclosure, and mitigation). In light of our findings, we argue that while red-teaming may be a valuable big-tent idea for characterizing GenAI harm mitigations, and that industry may effectively apply red-teaming and other strategies behind closed doors to safeguard AI, gestures towards red-teaming (based on public definitions) as a panacea for every possible risk verge on security theater. To move toward a more robust toolbox of evaluations for generative AI, we synthesize our recommendations into a question bank meant to guide and scaffold future AI red-teaming practices.
Read more8/29/2024
0
CREW: Facilitating Human-AI Teaming Research
Lingyu Zhang, Zhengran Ji, Boyuan Chen
With the increasing deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, the potential of humans working with AI agents has been growing at a great speed. Human-AI teaming is an important paradigm for studying various aspects when humans and AI agents work together. The unique aspect of Human-AI teaming research is the need to jointly study humans and AI agents, demanding multidisciplinary research efforts from machine learning to human-computer interaction, robotics, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, social science, and complex systems. However, existing platforms for Human-AI teaming research are limited, often supporting oversimplified scenarios and a single task, or specifically focusing on either human-teaming research or multi-agent AI algorithms. We introduce CREW, a platform to facilitate Human-AI teaming research and engage collaborations from multiple scientific disciplines, with a strong emphasis on human involvement. It includes pre-built tasks for cognitive studies and Human-AI teaming with expandable potentials from our modular design. Following conventional cognitive neuroscience research, CREW also supports multimodal human physiological signal recording for behavior analysis. Moreover, CREW benchmarks real-time human-guided reinforcement learning agents using state-of-the-art algorithms and well-tuned baselines. With CREW, we were able to conduct 50 human subject studies within a week to verify the effectiveness of our benchmark.
Read more8/2/2024
0
Designs for Enabling Collaboration in Human-Machine Teaming via Interactive and Explainable Systems
Rohan Paleja, Michael Munje, Kimberlee Chang, Reed Jensen, Matthew Gombolay
Collaborative robots and machine learning-based virtual agents are increasingly entering the human workspace with the aim of increasing productivity and enhancing safety. Despite this, we show in a ubiquitous experimental domain, Overcooked-AI, that state-of-the-art techniques for human-machine teaming (HMT), which rely on imitation or reinforcement learning, are brittle and result in a machine agent that aims to decouple the machine and human's actions to act independently rather than in a synergistic fashion. To remedy this deficiency, we develop HMT approaches that enable iterative, mixed-initiative team development allowing end-users to interactively reprogram interpretable AI teammates. Our 50-subject study provides several findings that we summarize into guidelines. While all approaches underperform a simple collaborative heuristic (a critical, negative result for learning-based methods), we find that white-box approaches supported by interactive modification can lead to significant team development, outperforming white-box approaches alone, and black-box approaches are easier to train and result in better HMT performance highlighting a tradeoff between explainability and interactivity versus ease-of-training. Together, these findings present three important directions: 1) Improving the ability to generate collaborative agents with white-box models, 2) Better learning methods to facilitate collaboration rather than individualized coordination, and 3) Mixed-initiative interfaces that enable users, who may vary in ability, to improve collaboration.
Read more6/10/2024