-
AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024): From Government Regulations to Corporate Policies
Authors:
Yi Zeng,
Kevin Klyman,
Andy Zhou,
Yu Yang,
Minzhou Pan,
Ruoxi Jia,
Dawn Song,
Percy Liang,
Bo Li
Abstract:
We present a comprehensive AI risk taxonomy derived from eight government policies from the European Union, United States, and China and 16 company policies worldwide, making a significant step towards establishing a unified language for generative AI safety evaluation. We identify 314 unique risk categories organized into a four-tiered taxonomy. At the highest level, this taxonomy encompasses Sys…
▽ More
We present a comprehensive AI risk taxonomy derived from eight government policies from the European Union, United States, and China and 16 company policies worldwide, making a significant step towards establishing a unified language for generative AI safety evaluation. We identify 314 unique risk categories organized into a four-tiered taxonomy. At the highest level, this taxonomy encompasses System & Operational Risks, Content Safety Risks, Societal Risks, and Legal & Rights Risks. The taxonomy establishes connections between various descriptions and approaches to risk, highlighting the overlaps and discrepancies between public and private sector conceptions of risk. By providing this unified framework, we aim to advance AI safety through information sharing across sectors and the promotion of best practices in risk mitigation for generative AI models and systems.
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
The Responsible Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: A Review of Tools & Resources
Authors:
Shayne Longpre,
Stella Biderman,
Alon Albalak,
Hailey Schoelkopf,
Daniel McDuff,
Sayash Kapoor,
Kevin Klyman,
Kyle Lo,
Gabriel Ilharco,
Nay San,
Maribeth Rauh,
Aviya Skowron,
Bertie Vidgen,
Laura Weidinger,
Arvind Narayanan,
Victor Sanh,
David Adelani,
Percy Liang,
Rishi Bommasani,
Peter Henderson,
Sasha Luccioni,
Yacine Jernite,
Luca Soldaini
Abstract:
Foundation model development attracts a rapidly expanding body of contributors, scientists, and applications. To help shape responsible development practices, we introduce the Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: a growing collection of 250+ tools and resources spanning text, vision, and speech modalities. We draw on a large body of prior work to survey resources (e.g. software, documentation,…
▽ More
Foundation model development attracts a rapidly expanding body of contributors, scientists, and applications. To help shape responsible development practices, we introduce the Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: a growing collection of 250+ tools and resources spanning text, vision, and speech modalities. We draw on a large body of prior work to survey resources (e.g. software, documentation, frameworks, guides, and practical tools) that support informed data selection, processing, and understanding, precise and limitation-aware artifact documentation, efficient model training, advance awareness of the environmental impact from training, careful model evaluation of capabilities, risks, and claims, as well as responsible model release, licensing and deployment practices. We hope this curated collection of resources helps guide more responsible development. The process of curating this list, enabled us to review the AI development ecosystem, revealing what tools are critically missing, misused, or over-used in existing practices. We find that (i) tools for data sourcing, model evaluation, and monitoring are critically under-serving ethical and real-world needs, (ii) evaluations for model safety, capabilities, and environmental impact all lack reproducibility and transparency, (iii) text and particularly English-centric analyses continue to dominate over multilingual and multi-modal analyses, and (iv) evaluation of systems, rather than just models, is needed so that capabilities and impact are assessed in context.
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2024; v1 submitted 24 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
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.
-
On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models
Authors:
Sayash Kapoor,
Rishi Bommasani,
Kevin Klyman,
Shayne Longpre,
Ashwin Ramaswami,
Peter Cihon,
Aspen Hopkins,
Kevin Bankston,
Stella Biderman,
Miranda Bogen,
Rumman Chowdhury,
Alex Engler,
Peter Henderson,
Yacine Jernite,
Seth Lazar,
Stefano Maffulli,
Alondra Nelson,
Joelle Pineau,
Aviya Skowron,
Dawn Song,
Victor Storchan,
Daniel Zhang,
Daniel E. Ho,
Percy Liang,
Arvind Narayanan
Abstract:
Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to bo…
▽ More
Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming
Authors:
Shayne Longpre,
Sayash Kapoor,
Kevin Klyman,
Ashwin Ramaswami,
Rishi Bommasani,
Borhane Blili-Hamelin,
Yangsibo Huang,
Aviya Skowron,
Zheng-Xin Yong,
Suhas Kotha,
Yi Zeng,
Weiyan Shi,
Xianjun Yang,
Reid Southen,
Alexander Robey,
Patrick Chao,
Diyi Yang,
Ruoxi Jia,
Daniel Kang,
Sandy Pentland,
Arvind Narayanan,
Percy Liang,
Peter Henderson
Abstract:
Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensio…
▽ More
Independent evaluation and red teaming are critical for identifying the risks posed by generative AI systems. However, the terms of service and enforcement strategies used by prominent AI companies to deter model misuse have disincentives on good faith safety evaluations. This causes some researchers to fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. Although some companies offer researcher access programs, they are an inadequate substitute for independent research access, as they have limited community representation, receive inadequate funding, and lack independence from corporate incentives. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, indemnifying public interest safety research and protecting it from the threat of account suspensions or legal reprisal. These proposals emerged from our collective experience conducting safety, privacy, and trustworthiness research on generative AI systems, where norms and incentives could be better aligned with public interests, without exacerbating model misuse. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
△ Less
Submitted 7 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Foundation Model Transparency Reports
Authors:
Rishi Bommasani,
Kevin Klyman,
Shayne Longpre,
Betty Xiong,
Sayash Kapoor,
Nestor Maslej,
Arvind Narayanan,
Percy Liang
Abstract:
Foundation models are critical digital technologies with swee** societal impact that necessitates transparency. To codify how foundation model developers should provide transparency about the development and deployment of their models, we propose Foundation Model Transparency Reports, drawing upon the transparency reporting practices in social media. While external documentation of societal harm…
▽ More
Foundation models are critical digital technologies with swee** societal impact that necessitates transparency. To codify how foundation model developers should provide transparency about the development and deployment of their models, we propose Foundation Model Transparency Reports, drawing upon the transparency reporting practices in social media. While external documentation of societal harms prompted social media transparency reports, our objective is to institutionalize transparency reporting for foundation models while the industry is still nascent. To design our reports, we identify 6 design principles given the successes and shortcomings of social media transparency reporting. To further schematize our reports, we draw upon the 100 transparency indicators from the Foundation Model Transparency Index. Given these indicators, we measure the extent to which they overlap with the transparency requirements included in six prominent government policies (e.g., the EU AI Act, the US Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI). Well-designed transparency reports could reduce compliance costs, in part due to overlap** regulatory requirements across different jurisdictions. We encourage foundation model developers to regularly publish transparency reports, building upon recommendations from the G7 and the White House.
△ Less
Submitted 25 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
The Foundation Model Transparency Index
Authors:
Rishi Bommasani,
Kevin Klyman,
Shayne Longpre,
Sayash Kapoor,
Nestor Maslej,
Betty Xiong,
Daniel Zhang,
Percy Liang
Abstract:
Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for…
▽ More
Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for public accountability, scientific innovation, and effective governance. To assess the transparency of the foundation model ecosystem and help improve transparency over time, we introduce the Foundation Model Transparency Index. The Foundation Model Transparency Index specifies 100 fine-grained indicators that comprehensively codify transparency for foundation models, spanning the upstream resources used to build a foundation model (e.g data, labor, compute), details about the model itself (e.g. size, capabilities, risks), and the downstream use (e.g. distribution channels, usage policies, affected geographies). We score 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google, Meta) against the 100 indicators to assess their transparency. To facilitate and standardize assessment, we score developers in relation to their practices for their flagship foundation model (e.g. GPT-4 for OpenAI, PaLM 2 for Google, Llama 2 for Meta). We present 10 top-level findings about the foundation model ecosystem: for example, no developer currently discloses significant information about the downstream impact of its flagship model, such as the number of users, affected market sectors, or how users can seek redress for harm. Overall, the Foundation Model Transparency Index establishes the level of transparency today to drive progress on foundation model governance via industry standards and regulatory intervention.
△ Less
Submitted 19 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
