怀疑人工智能风险评估影响的理由

Gabriel Mukobi
{"title":"怀疑人工智能风险评估影响的理由","authors":"Gabriel Mukobi","doi":"arxiv-2408.02565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AI safety practitioners invest considerable resources in AI system\nevaluations, but these investments may be wasted if evaluations fail to realize\ntheir impact. This paper questions the core value proposition of evaluations:\nthat they significantly improve our understanding of AI risks and,\nconsequently, our ability to mitigate those risks. Evaluations may fail to\nimprove understanding in six ways, such as risks manifesting beyond the AI\nsystem or insignificant returns from evaluations compared to real-world\nobservations. Improved understanding may also not lead to better risk\nmitigation in four ways, including challenges in upholding and enforcing\ncommitments. Evaluations could even be harmful, for example, by triggering the\nweaponization of dual-use capabilities or invoking high opportunity costs for\nAI safety. This paper concludes with considerations for improving evaluation\npractices and 12 recommendations for AI labs, external evaluators, regulators,\nand academic researchers to encourage a more strategic and impactful approach\nto AI risk assessment and mitigation.","PeriodicalId":501112,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Computers and Society","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasons to Doubt the Impact of AI Risk Evaluations\",\"authors\":\"Gabriel Mukobi\",\"doi\":\"arxiv-2408.02565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AI safety practitioners invest considerable resources in AI system\\nevaluations, but these investments may be wasted if evaluations fail to realize\\ntheir impact. This paper questions the core value proposition of evaluations:\\nthat they significantly improve our understanding of AI risks and,\\nconsequently, our ability to mitigate those risks. Evaluations may fail to\\nimprove understanding in six ways, such as risks manifesting beyond the AI\\nsystem or insignificant returns from evaluations compared to real-world\\nobservations. Improved understanding may also not lead to better risk\\nmitigation in four ways, including challenges in upholding and enforcing\\ncommitments. Evaluations could even be harmful, for example, by triggering the\\nweaponization of dual-use capabilities or invoking high opportunity costs for\\nAI safety. This paper concludes with considerations for improving evaluation\\npractices and 12 recommendations for AI labs, external evaluators, regulators,\\nand academic researchers to encourage a more strategic and impactful approach\\nto AI risk assessment and mitigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"arXiv - CS - Computers and Society\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"arXiv - CS - Computers and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.02565\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Computers and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.02565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能安全从业者在人工智能系统评估方面投入了大量资源,但如果评估未能实现其影响,这些投资就可能白白浪费。本文对评估的核心价值主张提出质疑:评估能显著提高我们对人工智能风险的理解,从而提高我们降低这些风险的能力。评估可能在六个方面无法提高人们的认识,如风险表现在人工智能系统之外,或评估的回报与现实世界的观察相比微不足道。在四个方面,理解的提高也可能无法带来更好的风险缓解,包括在维护和执行承诺方面的挑战。评估甚至可能是有害的,例如,引发双重用途能力的武器化或为人工智能安全带来高昂的机会成本。本文最后提出了改进评估实践的考虑因素,并为人工智能实验室、外部评估人员、监管机构和学术研究人员提出了 12 条建议,以鼓励采用更具战略性和影响力的方法来评估和降低人工智能风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reasons to Doubt the Impact of AI Risk Evaluations
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信