Model access decisions should be studied and coordinated through a dedicated research field, with recommendations for evaluators, companies, governments, and international bodies.
Reasons to Doubt the Impact of AI Risk Evaluations
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
AI safety practitioners invest considerable resources in AI system evaluations, but these investments may be wasted if evaluations fail to realize their impact. This paper questions the core value proposition of evaluations: that they significantly improve our understanding of AI risks and, consequently, our ability to mitigate those risks. Evaluations may fail to improve understanding in six ways, such as risks manifesting beyond the AI system or insignificant returns from evaluations compared to real-world observations. Improved understanding may also not lead to better risk mitigation in four ways, including challenges in upholding and enforcing commitments. Evaluations could even be harmful, for example, by triggering the weaponization of dual-use capabilities or invoking high opportunity costs for AI safety. This paper concludes with considerations for improving evaluation practices and 12 recommendations for AI labs, external evaluators, regulators, and academic researchers to encourage a more strategic and impactful approach to AI risk assessment and mitigation.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CY 1years
2024 1verdicts
ACCEPT 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Position Paper: Model Access should be a Key Concern in AI Governance
Model access decisions should be studied and coordinated through a dedicated research field, with recommendations for evaluators, companies, governments, and international bodies.