Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons
Authors:
Bertie Vidgen,
Adarsh Agrawal,
Ahmed M. Ahmed,
Victor Akinwande,
Namir Al-Nuaimi,
Najla Alfaraj,
Elie Alhajjar,
Lora Aroyo,
Trupti Bavalatti,
Max Bartolo,
Borhane Blili-Hamelin,
Kurt Bollacker,
Rishi Bomassani,
Marisa Ferrara Boston,
Siméon Campos,
Kal Chakra,
Canyu Chen,
Cody Coleman,
Zacharie Delpierre Coudert,
Leon Derczynski,
Debojyoti Dutta,
Ian Eisenberg,
James Ezick,
Heather Frase,
Brian Fuller
, et al. (75 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-pu…
▽ More
This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.
△ Less
Submitted 13 May, 2024; v1 submitted 18 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
Birdwatch: Crowd Wisdom and Bridging Algorithms can Inform Understanding and Reduce the Spread of Misinformation
Authors:
Stefan Wojcik,
Sophie Hilgard,
Nick Judd,
Delia Mocanu,
Stephen Ragain,
M. B. Fallin Hunzaker,
Keith Coleman,
Jay Baxter
Abstract:
We present an approach for selecting objectively informative and subjectively helpful annotations to social media posts. We draw on data from on an online environment where contributors annotate misinformation and simultaneously rate the contributions of others. Our algorithm uses a matrix-factorization (MF) based approach to identify annotations that appeal broadly across heterogeneous user group…
▽ More
We present an approach for selecting objectively informative and subjectively helpful annotations to social media posts. We draw on data from on an online environment where contributors annotate misinformation and simultaneously rate the contributions of others. Our algorithm uses a matrix-factorization (MF) based approach to identify annotations that appeal broadly across heterogeneous user groups - sometimes referred to as "bridging-based ranking." We pair these data with a survey experiment in which individuals are randomly assigned to see annotations to posts. We find that annotations selected by the algorithm improve key indicators compared with overall average and crowd-generated baselines. Further, when deployed on Twitter, people who saw annotations selected through this bridging-based approach were significantly less likely to reshare social media posts than those who did not see the annotations.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
