-
The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants
Authors:
Iason Gabriel,
Arianna Manzini,
Geoff Keeling,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Verena Rieser,
Hasan Iqbal,
Nenad TomaĊĦev,
Ira Ktena,
Zachary Kenton,
Mikel Rodriguez,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Sasha Brown,
Canfer Akbulut,
Andrew Trask,
Edward Hughes,
A. Stevie Bergman,
Renee Shelby,
Nahema Marchal,
Conor Griffin,
Juan Mateos-Garcia,
Laura Weidinger,
Winnie Street,
Benjamin Lange,
Alex Ingerman,
Alison Lentz
, et al. (32 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, pro…
▽ More
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.
△ Less
Submitted 28 April, 2024; v1 submitted 24 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI
Authors:
Seliem El-Sayed,
Canfer Akbulut,
Amanda McCroskery,
Geoff Keeling,
Zachary Kenton,
Zaria Jalan,
Nahema Marchal,
Arianna Manzini,
Toby Shevlane,
Shannon Vallor,
Daniel Susser,
Matija Franklin,
Sophie Bridgers,
Harry Law,
Matthew Rahtz,
Murray Shanahan,
Michael Henry Tessler,
Arthur Douillard,
Tom Everitt,
Sasha Brown
Abstract:
Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, high…
▽ More
Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, highlighting the need for a systematic study of AI persuasion. The current definitions of AI persuasion are unclear and related harms are insufficiently studied. Existing harm mitigation approaches prioritise harms from the outcome of persuasion over harms from the process of persuasion. In this paper, we lay the groundwork for the systematic study of AI persuasion. We first put forward definitions of persuasive generative AI. We distinguish between rationally persuasive generative AI, which relies on providing relevant facts, sound reasoning, or other forms of trustworthy evidence, and manipulative generative AI, which relies on taking advantage of cognitive biases and heuristics or misrepresenting information. We also put forward a map of harms from AI persuasion, including definitions and examples of economic, physical, environmental, psychological, sociocultural, political, privacy, and autonomy harm. We then introduce a map of mechanisms that contribute to harmful persuasion. Lastly, we provide an overview of approaches that can be used to mitigate against process harms of persuasion, including prompt engineering for manipulation classification and red teaming. Future work will operationalise these mitigations and study the interaction between different types of mechanisms of persuasion.
△ Less
Submitted 23 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems
Authors:
Laura Weidinger,
Maribeth Rauh,
Nahema Marchal,
Arianna Manzini,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Juan Mateos-Garcia,
Stevie Bergman,
Jackie Kay,
Conor Griffin,
Ben Bariach,
Iason Gabriel,
Verena Rieser,
William Isaac
Abstract:
Generative AI systems produce a range of risks. To ensure the safety of generative AI systems, these risks must be evaluated. In this paper, we make two main contributions toward establishing such evaluations. First, we propose a three-layered framework that takes a structured, sociotechnical approach to evaluating these risks. This framework encompasses capability evaluations, which are the main…
▽ More
Generative AI systems produce a range of risks. To ensure the safety of generative AI systems, these risks must be evaluated. In this paper, we make two main contributions toward establishing such evaluations. First, we propose a three-layered framework that takes a structured, sociotechnical approach to evaluating these risks. This framework encompasses capability evaluations, which are the main current approach to safety evaluation. It then reaches further by building on system safety principles, particularly the insight that context determines whether a given capability may cause harm. To account for relevant context, our framework adds human interaction and systemic impacts as additional layers of evaluation. Second, we survey the current state of safety evaluation of generative AI systems and create a repository of existing evaluations. Three salient evaluation gaps emerge from this analysis. We propose ways forward to closing these gaps, outlining practical steps as well as roles and responsibilities for different actors. Sociotechnical safety evaluation is a tractable approach to the robust and comprehensive safety evaluation of generative AI systems.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2023; v1 submitted 18 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Soft Grip**: Specifying for Trustworthiness
Authors:
Dhaminda B. Abeywickrama,
Nguyen Hao Le,
Greg Chance,
Peter D. Winter,
Arianna Manzini,
Alix J. Partridge,
Jonathan Ives,
John Downer,
Graham Deacon,
Jonathan Rossiter,
Kerstin Eder,
Shane Windsor
Abstract:
Soft robotics is an emerging technology in which engineers create flexible devices for use in a variety of applications. In order to advance the wide adoption of soft robots, ensuring their trustworthiness is essential; if soft robots are not trusted, they will not be used to their full potential. In order to demonstrate trustworthiness, a specification needs to be formulated to define what is tru…
▽ More
Soft robotics is an emerging technology in which engineers create flexible devices for use in a variety of applications. In order to advance the wide adoption of soft robots, ensuring their trustworthiness is essential; if soft robots are not trusted, they will not be used to their full potential. In order to demonstrate trustworthiness, a specification needs to be formulated to define what is trustworthy. However, even for soft robotic grippers, which is one of the most mature areas in soft robotics, the soft robotics community has so far given very little attention to formulating specifications. In this work, we discuss the importance of develo** specifications during development of soft robotic systems, and present an extensive example specification for a soft gripper for pick-and-place tasks for grocery items. The proposed specification covers both functional and non-functional requirements, such as reliability, safety, adaptability, predictability, ethics, and regulations. We also highlight the need to promote verifiability as a first-class objective in the design of a soft gripper.
△ Less
Submitted 30 October, 2023; v1 submitted 3 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
AERoS: Assurance of Emergent Behaviour in Autonomous Robotic Swarms
Authors:
Dhaminda B. Abeywickrama,
James Wilson,
Suet Lee,
Greg Chance,
Peter D. Winter,
Arianna Manzini,
Ibrahim Habli,
Shane Windsor,
Sabine Hauert,
Kerstin Eder
Abstract:
The behaviours of a swarm are not explicitly engineered. Instead, they are an emergent consequence of the interactions of individual agents with each other and their environment. This emergent functionality poses a challenge to safety assurance. The main contribution of this paper is a process for the safety assurance of emergent behaviour in autonomous robotic swarms called AERoS, following the g…
▽ More
The behaviours of a swarm are not explicitly engineered. Instead, they are an emergent consequence of the interactions of individual agents with each other and their environment. This emergent functionality poses a challenge to safety assurance. The main contribution of this paper is a process for the safety assurance of emergent behaviour in autonomous robotic swarms called AERoS, following the guidance on the Assurance of Machine Learning for use in Autonomous Systems (AMLAS). We explore our proposed process using a case study centred on a robot swarm operating a public cloakroom.
△ Less
Submitted 20 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
