-
The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants
Authors:
Iason Gabriel,
Arianna Manzini,
Geoff Keeling,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Verena Rieser,
Hasan Iqbal,
Nenad Tomašev,
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.
-
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.
-
The illusion of artificial inclusion
Authors:
William Agnew,
A. Stevie Bergman,
Jennifer Chien,
Mark Díaz,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Jaylen Pittman,
Shakir Mohamed,
Kevin R. McKee
Abstract:
Human participants play a central role in the development of modern artificial intelligence (AI) technology, in psychological science, and in user research. Recent advances in generative AI have attracted growing interest to the possibility of replacing human participants in these domains with AI surrogates. We survey several such "substitution proposals" to better understand the arguments for and…
▽ More
Human participants play a central role in the development of modern artificial intelligence (AI) technology, in psychological science, and in user research. Recent advances in generative AI have attracted growing interest to the possibility of replacing human participants in these domains with AI surrogates. We survey several such "substitution proposals" to better understand the arguments for and against substituting human participants with modern generative AI. Our scoping review indicates that the recent wave of these proposals is motivated by goals such as reducing the costs of research and development work and increasing the diversity of collected data. However, these proposals ignore and ultimately conflict with foundational values of work with human participants: representation, inclusion, and understanding. This paper critically examines the principles and goals underlying human participation to help chart out paths for future work that truly centers and empowers participants.
△ Less
Submitted 5 February, 2024; v1 submitted 16 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
