-
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.
-
Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities
Authors:
Mary Phuong,
Matthew Aitchison,
Elliot Catt,
Sarah Cogan,
Alexandre Kaskasoli,
Victoria Krakovna,
David Lindner,
Matthew Rahtz,
Yannis Assael,
Sarah Hodkinson,
Heidi Howard,
Tom Lieberum,
Ramana Kumar,
Maria Abi Raad,
Albert Webson,
Lewis Ho,
Sharon Lin,
Sebastian Farquhar,
Marcus Hutter,
Gregoire Deletang,
Anian Ruoss,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Sasha Brown,
Anca Dragan,
Rohin Shah
, et al. (2 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
To understand the risks posed by a new AI system, we must understand what it can and cannot do. Building on prior work, we introduce a programme of new "dangerous capability" evaluations and pilot them on Gemini 1.0 models. Our evaluations cover four areas: (1) persuasion and deception; (2) cyber-security; (3) self-proliferation; and (4) self-reasoning. We do not find evidence of strong dangerous…
▽ More
To understand the risks posed by a new AI system, we must understand what it can and cannot do. Building on prior work, we introduce a programme of new "dangerous capability" evaluations and pilot them on Gemini 1.0 models. Our evaluations cover four areas: (1) persuasion and deception; (2) cyber-security; (3) self-proliferation; and (4) self-reasoning. We do not find evidence of strong dangerous capabilities in the models we evaluated, but we flag early warning signs. Our goal is to help advance a rigorous science of dangerous capability evaluation, in preparation for future models.
△ Less
Submitted 5 April, 2024; v1 submitted 20 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context
Authors:
Gemini Team,
Petko Georgiev,
Ving Ian Lei,
Ryan Burnell,
Libin Bai,
Anmol Gulati,
Garrett Tanzer,
Damien Vincent,
Zhufeng Pan,
Shibo Wang,
Soroosh Mariooryad,
Yifan Ding,
Xinyang Geng,
Fred Alcober,
Roy Frostig,
Mark Omernick,
Lexi Walker,
Cosmin Paduraru,
Christina Sorokin,
Andrea Tacchetti,
Colin Gaffney,
Samira Daruki,
Olcan Sercinoglu,
Zach Gleicher,
Juliette Love
, et al. (1092 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and audio. The family includes two new models: (1) an updated Gemini 1.5 Pro, which exceeds the February…
▽ More
In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and audio. The family includes two new models: (1) an updated Gemini 1.5 Pro, which exceeds the February version on the great majority of capabilities and benchmarks; (2) Gemini 1.5 Flash, a more lightweight variant designed for efficiency with minimal regression in quality. Gemini 1.5 models achieve near-perfect recall on long-context retrieval tasks across modalities, improve the state-of-the-art in long-document QA, long-video QA and long-context ASR, and match or surpass Gemini 1.0 Ultra's state-of-the-art performance across a broad set of benchmarks. Studying the limits of Gemini 1.5's long-context ability, we find continued improvement in next-token prediction and near-perfect retrieval (>99%) up to at least 10M tokens, a generational leap over existing models such as Claude 3.0 (200k) and GPT-4 Turbo (128k). Finally, we highlight real-world use cases, such as Gemini 1.5 collaborating with professionals on completing their tasks achieving 26 to 75% time savings across 10 different job categories, as well as surprising new capabilities of large language models at the frontier; when given a grammar manual for Kalamang, a language with fewer than 200 speakers worldwide, the model learns to translate English to Kalamang at a similar level to a person who learned from the same content.
△ Less
Submitted 14 June, 2024; v1 submitted 8 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models
Authors:
Gemini Team,
Rohan Anil,
Sebastian Borgeaud,
Jean-Baptiste Alayrac,
Jiahui Yu,
Radu Soricut,
Johan Schalkwyk,
Andrew M. Dai,
Anja Hauth,
Katie Millican,
David Silver,
Melvin Johnson,
Ioannis Antonoglou,
Julian Schrittwieser,
Amelia Glaese,
Jilin Chen,
Emily Pitler,
Timothy Lillicrap,
Angeliki Lazaridou,
Orhan Firat,
James Molloy,
Michael Isard,
Paul R. Barham,
Tom Hennigan,
Benjamin Lee
, et al. (1325 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultr…
▽ More
This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultra model advances the state of the art in 30 of 32 of these benchmarks - notably being the first model to achieve human-expert performance on the well-studied exam benchmark MMLU, and improving the state of the art in every one of the 20 multimodal benchmarks we examined. We believe that the new capabilities of the Gemini family in cross-modal reasoning and language understanding will enable a wide variety of use cases. We discuss our approach toward post-training and deploying Gemini models responsibly to users through services including Gemini, Gemini Advanced, Google AI Studio, and Cloud Vertex AI.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2024; v1 submitted 18 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Model evaluation for extreme risks
Authors:
Toby Shevlane,
Sebastian Farquhar,
Ben Garfinkel,
Mary Phuong,
Jess Whittlestone,
Jade Leung,
Daniel Kokotajlo,
Nahema Marchal,
Markus Anderljung,
Noam Kolt,
Lewis Ho,
Divya Siddarth,
Shahar Avin,
Will Hawkins,
Been Kim,
Iason Gabriel,
Vijay Bolina,
Jack Clark,
Yoshua Bengio,
Paul Christiano,
Allan Dafoe
Abstract:
Current approaches to building general-purpose AI systems tend to produce systems with both beneficial and harmful capabilities. Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks. Developers must be able to identify danger…
▽ More
Current approaches to building general-purpose AI systems tend to produce systems with both beneficial and harmful capabilities. Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks. Developers must be able to identify dangerous capabilities (through "dangerous capability evaluations") and the propensity of models to apply their capabilities for harm (through "alignment evaluations"). These evaluations will become critical for kee** policymakers and other stakeholders informed, and for making responsible decisions about model training, deployment, and security.
△ Less
Submitted 22 September, 2023; v1 submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Structured access: an emerging paradigm for safe AI deployment
Authors:
Toby Shevlane
Abstract:
Structured access is an emerging paradigm for the safe deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Instead of openly disseminating AI systems, developers facilitate controlled, arm's length interactions with their AI systems. The aim is to prevent dangerous AI capabilities from being widely accessible, whilst preserving access to AI capabilities that can be used safely. The developer must both res…
▽ More
Structured access is an emerging paradigm for the safe deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Instead of openly disseminating AI systems, developers facilitate controlled, arm's length interactions with their AI systems. The aim is to prevent dangerous AI capabilities from being widely accessible, whilst preserving access to AI capabilities that can be used safely. The developer must both restrict how the AI system can be used, and prevent the user from circumventing these restrictions through modification or reverse engineering of the AI system. Structured access is most effective when implemented through cloud-based AI services, rather than disseminating AI software that runs locally on users' hardware. Cloud-based interfaces provide the AI developer greater scope for controlling how the AI system is used, and for protecting against unauthorized modifications to the system's design. This chapter expands the discussion of "publication norms" in the AI community, which to date has focused on the question of how the informational content of AI research projects should be disseminated (e.g., code and models). Although this is an important question, there are limits to what can be achieved through the control of information flows. Structured access views AI software not only as information that can be shared but also as a tool with which users can have arm's length interactions. There are early examples of structured access being practiced by AI developers, but there is much room for further development, both in the functionality of cloud-based interfaces and in the wider institutional framework.
△ Less
Submitted 11 April, 2022; v1 submitted 13 January, 2022;
originally announced January 2022.
-
The Offense-Defense Balance of Scientific Knowledge: Does Publishing AI Research Reduce Misuse?
Authors:
Toby Shevlane,
Allan Dafoe
Abstract:
There is growing concern over the potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Publishing scientific research can facilitate misuse of the technology, but the research can also contribute to protections against misuse. This paper addresses the balance between these two effects. Our theoretical framework elucidates the factors governing whether the published research will be more usef…
▽ More
There is growing concern over the potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Publishing scientific research can facilitate misuse of the technology, but the research can also contribute to protections against misuse. This paper addresses the balance between these two effects. Our theoretical framework elucidates the factors governing whether the published research will be more useful for attackers or defenders, such as the possibility for adequate defensive measures, or the independent discovery of the knowledge outside of the scientific community. The balance will vary across scientific fields. However, we show that the existing conversation within AI has imported concepts and conclusions from prior debates within computer security over the disclosure of software vulnerabilities. While disclosure of software vulnerabilities often favours defence, this cannot be assumed for AI research. The AI research community should consider concepts and policies from a broad set of adjacent fields, and ultimately needs to craft policy well-suited to its particular challenges.
△ Less
Submitted 9 January, 2020; v1 submitted 27 December, 2019;
originally announced January 2020.
