Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Reasons to Doubt the Impact of AI Risk Evaluations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.02565 v1 pith:DKHVD7QO submitted 2024-08-05 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords evaluationsriskrisksunderstandingfailimpactimprovemitigation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GPAI Evaluations Standards Taskforce: Towards Effective AI Governance

    cs.CY 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes an EU GPAI Evaluation Standards Taskforce to develop adaptive standards for AI evaluations, based on four desiderata: internal validity, external validity, reproducibility, and portability.

  2. Declare and Justify: Explicit assumptions in AI evaluations are necessary for effective regulation

    cs.AI 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AI evaluation-based regulation should require developers to state and justify key assumptions, and halt development when those justifications are inadequate.

  3. Position Paper: Model Access should be a Key Concern in AI Governance

    cs.CY 2024-12 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    Model access decisions should be studied and coordinated through a dedicated research field, with recommendations for evaluators, companies, governments, and international bodies.

Pith tools