Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?

Overview

• As AI systems become more advanced, there is growing interest in AI safety research to address emerging risks.
• However, the field of AI safety is poorly defined and inconsistently measured, leading to confusion about how researchers can contribute.
• The relationship between AI safety benchmarks and upstream general capabilities (e.g., knowledge and reasoning) is also unclear.

Plain English Explanation

The rapid progress of artificial intelligence has raised concerns about potential risks and the need for AI safety research. However, this field is still not well-defined, making it challenging for researchers to know how to contribute effectively. Additionally, it's unclear how the specific tests or "benchmarks" used to evaluate AI safety relate to the broader capabilities of AI systems, such as their knowledge and reasoning abilities. This lack of clarity has led to concerns that improvements in AI capabilities could be misrepresented as advancements in safety.

To address these issues, the researchers conducted a comprehensive analysis of AI safety benchmarks and their correlation with general AI capabilities across many different models. Their goal was to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research and clearer definitions of what constitutes meaningful progress in this area.

Technical Explanation

The researchers performed a meta-analysis of AI safety benchmarks, empirically examining their relationship with upstream general capabilities across dozens of AI models. Their findings revealed that many safety benchmarks are highly correlated with these broader capabilities, suggesting that advancements in safety may often simply reflect improvements in underlying model capabilities rather than meaningful progress in safety-specific research goals.

Based on these insights, the researchers propose a more empirically grounded definition of AI safety, framing it as a set of clearly delineated research objectives that can be separated from generic capability advancements. They argue that this framework can help provide a more rigorous foundation for AI safety research and enable more meaningful progress in evaluating and ensuring the safety of advanced AI systems.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge that their analysis has limitations, as the relationships between safety benchmarks and capabilities may be more complex than the linear correlations they examined. They also note that some aspects of AI safety, such as robustness to distributional shift or out-of-distribution inputs, may be more empirically separable from general capabilities.

Additionally, the researchers do not delve into the specific safety concerns or risks that motivate the need for this research, such as the potential for advanced AI systems to cause unintended harm. A more thorough discussion of these issues could help readers understand the broader context and importance of the work.

Conclusion

This research provides a valuable empirical foundation for defining and measuring AI safety in a more rigorous and meaningful way. By clarifying the relationship between safety benchmarks and underlying capabilities, the researchers aim to help the field of AI safety move towards more tangible and measurable progress in addressing the potential risks of advanced AI systems.