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 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 generative AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor, protecting public interest safety research and removing 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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 32691-32710 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Proceedings of Machine Learning Research |
| Volume | 235 |
| State | Published - 2024 |
| Event | 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024 - Vienna, Austria Duration: Jul 21 2024 → Jul 27 2024 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Software
- Control and Systems Engineering
- Statistics and Probability
- Artificial Intelligence
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Position: A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver