The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2411.08088 · v1 · pith:5GPJQJ7R · submitted 2024-11-12 · cs.CY · cs.CR

Safety case template for frontier AI: A cyber inability argument

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:5GPJQJ7Rrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY cs.CR
keywords safetytemplatecaseriskargumentscyberfrontiermodels
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems pose increasing risks to society, making it essential for developers to provide assurances about their safety. One approach to offering such assurances is through a safety case: a structured, evidence-based argument aimed at demonstrating why the risk associated with a safety-critical system is acceptable. In this article, we propose a safety case template for offensive cyber capabilities. We illustrate how developers could argue that a model does not have capabilities posing unacceptable cyber risks by breaking down the main claim into progressively specific sub-claims, each supported by evidence. In our template, we identify a number of risk models, derive proxy tasks from the risk models, define evaluation settings for the proxy tasks, and connect those with evaluation results. Elements of current frontier safety techniques - such as risk models, proxy tasks, and capability evaluations - use implicit arguments for overall system safety. This safety case template integrates these elements using the Claims Arguments Evidence (CAE) framework in order to make safety arguments coherent and explicit. While uncertainties around the specifics remain, this template serves as a proof of concept, aiming to foster discussion on AI safety cases and advance AI assurance.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Comprehensive AI governance requires addressing non-model gains

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Non-model gains via inference, systems, and assets can drive AI capabilities independently of base models, requiring governance beyond model-level evaluation and mitigation.

  2. Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety

    cs.AI 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Chain-of-thought monitorability provides a promising but fragile method for AI safety oversight that developers should actively preserve.