A new 512-prompt benchmark claims to measure LLM over-refusal on scientific dual-use questions, but its design and labeling flaws undermine the claim.
Hazards from Increasingly Accessible Fine-Tuning of Downloadable Foundation Models
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Public release of the weights of pretrained foundation models, otherwise known as downloadable access \citep{solaiman_gradient_2023}, enables fine-tuning without the prohibitive expense of pretraining. Our work argues that increasingly accessible fine-tuning of downloadable models may increase hazards. First, we highlight research to improve the accessibility of fine-tuning. We split our discussion into research that A) reduces the computational cost of fine-tuning and B) improves the ability to share that cost across more actors. Second, we argue that increasingly accessible fine-tuning methods may increase hazard through facilitating malicious use and making oversight of models with potentially dangerous capabilities more difficult. Third, we discuss potential mitigatory measures, as well as benefits of more accessible fine-tuning. Given substantial remaining uncertainty about hazards, we conclude by emphasizing the urgent need for the development of mitigations.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CL 1years
2025 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Forbidden Science: Dual-Use AI Challenge Benchmark and Scientific Refusal Tests
A new 512-prompt benchmark claims to measure LLM over-refusal on scientific dual-use questions, but its design and labeling flaws undermine the claim.