REVIEW 4 cited by
Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects
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
read the original abstract
As AI systems appear to exhibit ever-increasing capability and generality, assessing their true potential and safety becomes paramount. This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate, heightening the risks and potential hazards associated with AI. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration in our approaches, which have a longstanding tradition of assessing general intelligence across diverse species. We will identify some of the difficulties that need to be overcome when applying cognitively-inspired approaches to general-purpose AI systems and also analyse the emerging area of "Evals". The paper concludes by identifying promising research pathways that could refine AI evaluation, advancing it towards a rigorous scientific domain that contributes to the development of safe AI systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations
A descriptive conceptual framework with seven elements (target, task, subject, inputs, instance, measurement, result analysis) for systematizing analysis of AI capability evaluations.
-
Declare and Justify: Explicit assumptions in AI evaluations are necessary for effective regulation
AI evaluation-based regulation should require developers to state and justify key assumptions, and halt development when those justifications are inadequate.
-
Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation
A meta-review of about 110 critical studies finds nine systemic weaknesses in AI benchmarking and concludes that benchmarks are receiving disproportionate trust in AI governance.
-
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.