Showing 1–25 of 25 results for author: Brundage, M

Third-party compliance reviews for frontier AI safety frameworks

Authors: Aidan Homewood, Sophie Williams, Noemi Dreksler, John Lidiard, Malcolm Murray, Lennart Heim, Marta Ziosi, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Michael Chen, Kevin Wei, Christoph Winter, Miles Brundage, Ben Garfinkel, Jonas Schuett

Abstract: Safety frameworks have emerged as a best practice for managing risks from frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, it may be difficult for stakeholders to know if companies are adhering to their frameworks. This paper explores a potential solution: third-party compliance reviews. During a third-party compliance review, an independent external party assesses whether a frontier AI com… ▽ More Safety frameworks have emerged as a best practice for managing risks from frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, it may be difficult for stakeholders to know if companies are adhering to their frameworks. This paper explores a potential solution: third-party compliance reviews. During a third-party compliance review, an independent external party assesses whether a frontier AI company is complying with its safety framework. First, we discuss the main benefits and challenges of such reviews. On the one hand, they can increase compliance with safety frameworks and provide assurance to internal and external stakeholders. On the other hand, they can create information security risks, impose additional cost burdens, and cause reputational damage, but these challenges can be partially mitigated by drawing on best practices from other industries. Next, we answer practical questions about third-party compliance reviews, namely: (1) Who could conduct the review? (2) What information sources could the reviewer consider? (3) How could compliance with the safety framework be assessed? (4) What information about the review could be disclosed externally? (5) How could the findings guide development and deployment actions? (6) When could the reviews be conducted? For each question, we evaluate a set of plausible options. Finally, we suggest "minimalist", "more ambitious", and "comprehensive" approaches for each question that a frontier AI company could adopt. △ Less

Submitted 4 July, 2025; v1 submitted 2 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Comments: 27 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables

Demystifying the Accuracy-Interpretability Trade-Off: A Case Study of Inferring Ratings from Reviews

Authors: Pranjal Atrey, Michael P. Brundage, Min Wu, Sanghamitra Dutta

Abstract: Interpretable machine learning models offer understandable reasoning behind their decision-making process, though they may not always match the performance of their black-box counterparts. This trade-off between interpretability and model performance has sparked discussions around the deployment of AI, particularly in critical applications where knowing the rationale of decision-making is essentia… ▽ More Interpretable machine learning models offer understandable reasoning behind their decision-making process, though they may not always match the performance of their black-box counterparts. This trade-off between interpretability and model performance has sparked discussions around the deployment of AI, particularly in critical applications where knowing the rationale of decision-making is essential for trust and accountability. In this study, we conduct a comparative analysis of several black-box and interpretable models, focusing on a specific NLP use case that has received limited attention: inferring ratings from reviews. Through this use case, we explore the intricate relationship between the performance and interpretability of different models. We introduce a quantitative score called Composite Interpretability (CI) to help visualize the trade-off between interpretability and performance, particularly in the case of composite models. Our results indicate that, in general, the learning performance improves as interpretability decreases, but this relationship is not strictly monotonic, and there are instances where interpretable models are more advantageous. △ Less

Submitted 10 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Comments: Accepted at DAI Workshop, AAAI-2025

Machine Unlearning Doesn't Do What You Think: Lessons for Generative AI Policy, Research, and Practice

Authors: A. Feder Cooper, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Miranda Bogen, Matthew Jagielski, Katja Filippova, Ken Ziyu Liu, Alexandra Chouldechova, Jamie Hayes, Yangsibo Huang, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Ilia Shumailov, Eleni Triantafillou, Peter Kairouz, Nicole Mitchell, Percy Liang, Daniel E. Ho, Yejin Choi, Sanmi Koyejo, Fernando Delgado, James Grimmelmann, Vitaly Shmatikov, Christopher De Sa, Solon Barocas, Amy Cyphert, Mark Lemley , et al. (10 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: We articulate fundamental mismatches between technical methods for machine unlearning in Generative AI, and documented aspirations for broader impact that these methods could have for law and policy. These aspirations are both numerous and varied, motivated by issues that pertain to privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effect… ▽ More We articulate fundamental mismatches between technical methods for machine unlearning in Generative AI, and documented aspirations for broader impact that these methods could have for law and policy. These aspirations are both numerous and varied, motivated by issues that pertain to privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effects of targeted information from a generative-AI model's parameters, e.g., a particular individual's personal data or in-copyright expression of Spiderman that was included in the model's training data. Unlearning is also proposed as a way to prevent a model from generating targeted types of information in its outputs, e.g., generations that closely resemble a particular individual's data or reflect the concept of "Spiderman." Both of these goals--the targeted removal of information from a model and the targeted suppression of information from a model's outputs--present various technical and substantive challenges. We provide a framework for thinking rigorously about these challenges, which enables us to be clear about why unlearning is not a general-purpose solution for circumscribing generative-AI model behavior in service of broader positive impact. We aim for conceptual clarity and to encourage more thoughtful communication among machine learning (ML), law, and policy experts who seek to develop and apply technical methods for compliance with policy objectives. △ Less

Submitted 9 December, 2024; originally announced December 2024.

Comments: Presented at the 2nd Workshop on Generative AI and Law at ICML (July 2024)

GPT-4o System Card

Authors: OpenAI, :, Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P. Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, Aleksander Mądry, Alex Baker-Whitcomb, Alex Beutel, Alex Borzunov, Alex Carney, Alex Chow, Alex Kirillov, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Alex Renzin, Alex Tachard Passos, Alexander Kirillov, Alexi Christakis , et al. (395 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: GPT-4o is an autoregressive omni model that accepts as input any combination of text, audio, image, and video, and generates any combination of text, audio, and image outputs. It's trained end-to-end across text, vision, and audio, meaning all inputs and outputs are processed by the same neural network. GPT-4o can respond to audio inputs in as little as 232 milliseconds, with an average of 320 mil… ▽ More GPT-4o is an autoregressive omni model that accepts as input any combination of text, audio, image, and video, and generates any combination of text, audio, and image outputs. It's trained end-to-end across text, vision, and audio, meaning all inputs and outputs are processed by the same neural network. GPT-4o can respond to audio inputs in as little as 232 milliseconds, with an average of 320 milliseconds, which is similar to human response time in conversation. It matches GPT-4 Turbo performance on text in English and code, with significant improvement on text in non-English languages, while also being much faster and 50\% cheaper in the API. GPT-4o is especially better at vision and audio understanding compared to existing models. In line with our commitment to building AI safely and consistent with our voluntary commitments to the White House, we are sharing the GPT-4o System Card, which includes our Preparedness Framework evaluations. In this System Card, we provide a detailed look at GPT-4o's capabilities, limitations, and safety evaluations across multiple categories, focusing on speech-to-speech while also evaluating text and image capabilities, and measures we've implemented to ensure the model is safe and aligned. We also include third-party assessments on dangerous capabilities, as well as discussion of potential societal impacts of GPT-4o's text and vision capabilities. △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence

Authors: Girish Sastry, Lennart Heim, Haydn Belfield, Markus Anderljung, Miles Brundage, Julian Hazell, Cullen O'Keefe, Gillian K. Hadfield, Richard Ngo, Konstantin Pilz, George Gor, Emma Bluemke, Sarah Shoker, Janet Egan, Robert F. Trager, Shahar Avin, Adrian Weller, Yoshua Bengio, Diane Coyle

Abstract: Computing power, or "compute," is crucial for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. As a result, governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. For example, governments are investing in domestic compute capacity, controlling the flow of compute to competing countries, and subsidizing compute access to certain sectors. Howe… ▽ More Computing power, or "compute," is crucial for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. As a result, governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. For example, governments are investing in domestic compute capacity, controlling the flow of compute to competing countries, and subsidizing compute access to certain sectors. However, these efforts only scratch the surface of how compute can be used to govern AI development and deployment. Relative to other key inputs to AI (data and algorithms), AI-relevant compute is a particularly effective point of intervention: it is detectable, excludable, and quantifiable, and is produced via an extremely concentrated supply chain. These characteristics, alongside the singular importance of compute for cutting-edge AI models, suggest that governing compute can contribute to achieving common policy objectives, such as ensuring the safety and beneficial use of AI. More precisely, policymakers could use compute to facilitate regulatory visibility of AI, allocate resources to promote beneficial outcomes, and enforce restrictions against irresponsible or malicious AI development and usage. However, while compute-based policies and technologies have the potential to assist in these areas, there is significant variation in their readiness for implementation. Some ideas are currently being piloted, while others are hindered by the need for fundamental research. Furthermore, naive or poorly scoped approaches to compute governance carry significant risks in areas like privacy, economic impacts, and centralization of power. We end by suggesting guardrails to minimize these risks from compute governance. △ Less

Submitted 13 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: Figures can be accessed at: https://github.com/lheim/CPGAI-Figures

Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law

Authors: A. Feder Cooper, Katherine Lee, James Grimmelmann, Daphne Ippolito, Christopher Callison-Burch, Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Miles Brundage, David Mimno, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Jack M. Balkin, Nicholas Carlini, Christopher De Sa, Jonathan Frankle, Deep Ganguli, Bryant Gipson, Andres Guadamuz, Swee Leng Harris, Abigail Z. Jacobs, Elizabeth Joh, Gautam Kamath, Mark Lemley, Cass Matthews, Christine McLeavey, Corynne McSherry , et al. (10 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw), held in July 2023. A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI, and by Generative AI for law, with an emphasis on U.S. law in particular. We begin the report… ▽ More This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw), held in July 2023. A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI, and by Generative AI for law, with an emphasis on U.S. law in particular. We begin the report with a high-level statement about why Generative AI is both immensely significant and immensely challenging for law. To meet these challenges, we conclude that there is an essential need for 1) a shared knowledge base that provides a common conceptual language for experts across disciplines; 2) clarification of the distinctive technical capabilities of generative-AI systems, as compared and contrasted to other computer and AI systems; 3) a logical taxonomy of the legal issues these systems raise; and, 4) a concrete research agenda to promote collaboration and knowledge-sharing on emerging issues at the intersection of Generative AI and law. In this report, we synthesize the key takeaways from the GenLaw workshop that begin to address these needs. All of the listed authors contributed to the workshop upon which this report is based, but they and their organizations do not necessarily endorse all of the specific claims in this report. △ Less

Submitted 2 December, 2023; v1 submitted 10 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence: Workshop Proceedings

Authors: Sarah Shoker, Andrew Reddie, Sarah Barrington, Ruby Booth, Miles Brundage, Husanjot Chahal, Michael Depp, Bill Drexel, Ritwik Gupta, Marina Favaro, Jake Hecla, Alan Hickey, Margarita Konaev, Kirthi Kumar, Nathan Lambert, Andrew Lohn, Cullen O'Keefe, Nazneen Rajani, Michael Sellitto, Robert Trager, Leah Walker, Alexa Wehsener, Jessica Young

Abstract: Foundation models could eventually introduce several pathways for undermining state security: accidents, inadvertent escalation, unintentional conflict, the proliferation of weapons, and the interference with human diplomacy are just a few on a long list. The Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence workshop hosted by the Geopolitics Team at OpenAI and the Berkeley Risk and Securit… ▽ More Foundation models could eventually introduce several pathways for undermining state security: accidents, inadvertent escalation, unintentional conflict, the proliferation of weapons, and the interference with human diplomacy are just a few on a long list. The Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence workshop hosted by the Geopolitics Team at OpenAI and the Berkeley Risk and Security Lab at the University of California brought together a multistakeholder group to think through the tools and strategies to mitigate the potential risks introduced by foundation models to international security. Originating in the Cold War, confidence-building measures (CBMs) are actions that reduce hostility, prevent conflict escalation, and improve trust between parties. The flexibility of CBMs make them a key instrument for navigating the rapid changes in the foundation model landscape. Participants identified the following CBMs that directly apply to foundation models and which are further explained in this conference proceedings: 1. crisis hotlines 2. incident sharing 3. model, transparency, and system cards 4. content provenance and watermarks 5. collaborative red teaming and table-top exercises and 6. dataset and evaluation sharing. Because most foundation model developers are non-government entities, many CBMs will need to involve a wider stakeholder community. These measures can be implemented either by AI labs or by relevant government actors. △ Less

Submitted 3 August, 2023; v1 submitted 1 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

International Institutions for Advanced AI

Authors: Lewis Ho, Joslyn Barnhart, Robert Trager, Yoshua Bengio, Miles Brundage, Allison Carnegie, Rumman Chowdhury, Allan Dafoe, Gillian Hadfield, Margaret Levi, Duncan Snidal

Abstract: International institutions may have an important role to play in ensuring advanced AI systems benefit humanity. International collaborations can unlock AI's ability to further sustainable development, and coordination of regulatory efforts can reduce obstacles to innovation and the spread of benefits. Conversely, the potential dangerous capabilities of powerful and general-purpose AI systems creat… ▽ More International institutions may have an important role to play in ensuring advanced AI systems benefit humanity. International collaborations can unlock AI's ability to further sustainable development, and coordination of regulatory efforts can reduce obstacles to innovation and the spread of benefits. Conversely, the potential dangerous capabilities of powerful and general-purpose AI systems create global externalities in their development and deployment, and international efforts to further responsible AI practices could help manage the risks they pose. This paper identifies a set of governance functions that could be performed at an international level to address these challenges, ranging from supporting access to frontier AI systems to setting international safety standards. It groups these functions into four institutional models that exhibit internal synergies and have precedents in existing organizations: 1) a Commission on Frontier AI that facilitates expert consensus on opportunities and risks from advanced AI, 2) an Advanced AI Governance Organization that sets international standards to manage global threats from advanced models, supports their implementation, and possibly monitors compliance with a future governance regime, 3) a Frontier AI Collaborative that promotes access to cutting-edge AI, and 4) an AI Safety Project that brings together leading researchers and engineers to further AI safety research. We explore the utility of these models and identify open questions about their viability. △ Less

Submitted 11 July, 2023; v1 submitted 10 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Comments: 19 pages, 2 figures, fixed rendering issues

ACM Class: K.4.1

Frontier AI Regulation: Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safety

Authors: Markus Anderljung, Joslyn Barnhart, Anton Korinek, Jade Leung, Cullen O'Keefe, Jess Whittlestone, Shahar Avin, Miles Brundage, Justin Bullock, Duncan Cass-Beggs, Ben Chang, Tantum Collins, Tim Fist, Gillian Hadfield, Alan Hayes, Lewis Ho, Sara Hooker, Eric Horvitz, Noam Kolt, Jonas Schuett, Yonadav Shavit, Divya Siddarth, Robert Trager, Kevin Wolf

Abstract: Advanced AI models hold the promise of tremendous benefits for humanity, but society needs to proactively manage the accompanying risks. In this paper, we focus on what we term "frontier AI" models: highly capable foundation models that could possess dangerous capabilities sufficient to pose severe risks to public safety. Frontier AI models pose a distinct regulatory challenge: dangerous capabilit… ▽ More Advanced AI models hold the promise of tremendous benefits for humanity, but society needs to proactively manage the accompanying risks. In this paper, we focus on what we term "frontier AI" models: highly capable foundation models that could possess dangerous capabilities sufficient to pose severe risks to public safety. Frontier AI models pose a distinct regulatory challenge: dangerous capabilities can arise unexpectedly; it is difficult to robustly prevent a deployed model from being misused; and, it is difficult to stop a model's capabilities from proliferating broadly. To address these challenges, at least three building blocks for the regulation of frontier models are needed: (1) standard-setting processes to identify appropriate requirements for frontier AI developers, (2) registration and reporting requirements to provide regulators with visibility into frontier AI development processes, and (3) mechanisms to ensure compliance with safety standards for the development and deployment of frontier AI models. Industry self-regulation is an important first step. However, wider societal discussions and government intervention will be needed to create standards and to ensure compliance with them. We consider several options to this end, including granting enforcement powers to supervisory authorities and licensure regimes for frontier AI models. Finally, we propose an initial set of safety standards. These include conducting pre-deployment risk assessments; external scrutiny of model behavior; using risk assessments to inform deployment decisions; and monitoring and responding to new information about model capabilities and uses post-deployment. We hope this discussion contributes to the broader conversation on how to balance public safety risks and innovation benefits from advances at the frontier of AI development. △ Less

Submitted 7 November, 2023; v1 submitted 6 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Comments: Update July 11th: - Added missing footnote back in. - Adjusted author order (mistakenly non-alphabetical among the first 6 authors) and adjusted affiliations (Jess Whittlestone's affiliation was mistagged and Gillian Hadfield had SRI added to her affiliations) Updated September 4th: Various typos

GPT-4 Technical Report

Authors: OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Valerie Balcom, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Mohammad Bavarian, Jeff Belgum, Irwan Bello, Jake Berdine, Gabriel Bernadett-Shapiro, Christopher Berner, Lenny Bogdonoff, Oleg Boiko , et al. (256 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: We report the development of GPT-4, a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. While less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers. GPT-4 is a Transformer-based mo… ▽ More We report the development of GPT-4, a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. While less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers. GPT-4 is a Transformer-based model pre-trained to predict the next token in a document. The post-training alignment process results in improved performance on measures of factuality and adherence to desired behavior. A core component of this project was developing infrastructure and optimization methods that behave predictably across a wide range of scales. This allowed us to accurately predict some aspects of GPT-4's performance based on models trained with no more than 1/1,000th the compute of GPT-4. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2024; v1 submitted 15 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: 100 pages; updated authors list; fixed author names and added citation

A Hazard Analysis Framework for Code Synthesis Large Language Models

Authors: Heidy Khlaaf, Pamela Mishkin, Joshua Achiam, Gretchen Krueger, Miles Brundage

Abstract: Codex, a large language model (LLM) trained on a variety of codebases, exceeds the previous state of the art in its capacity to synthesize and generate code. Although Codex provides a plethora of benefits, models that may generate code on such scale have significant limitations, alignment problems, the potential to be misused, and the possibility to increase the rate of progress in technical field… ▽ More Codex, a large language model (LLM) trained on a variety of codebases, exceeds the previous state of the art in its capacity to synthesize and generate code. Although Codex provides a plethora of benefits, models that may generate code on such scale have significant limitations, alignment problems, the potential to be misused, and the possibility to increase the rate of progress in technical fields that may themselves have destabilizing impacts or have misuse potential. Yet such safety impacts are not yet known or remain to be explored. In this paper, we outline a hazard analysis framework constructed at OpenAI to uncover hazards or safety risks that the deployment of models like Codex may impose technically, socially, politically, and economically. The analysis is informed by a novel evaluation framework that determines the capacity of advanced code generation techniques against the complexity and expressivity of specification prompts, and their capability to understand and execute them relative to human ability. △ Less

Submitted 25 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Filling gaps in trustworthy development of AI

Authors: Shahar Avin, Haydn Belfield, Miles Brundage, Gretchen Krueger, Jasmine Wang, Adrian Weller, Markus Anderljung, Igor Krawczuk, David Krueger, Jonathan Lebensold, Tegan Maharaj, Noa Zilberman

Abstract: The range of application of artificial intelligence (AI) is vast, as is the potential for harm. Growing awareness of potential risks from AI systems has spurred action to address those risks, while eroding confidence in AI systems and the organizations that develop them. A 2019 study found over 80 organizations that published and adopted "AI ethics principles'', and more have joined since. But the… ▽ More The range of application of artificial intelligence (AI) is vast, as is the potential for harm. Growing awareness of potential risks from AI systems has spurred action to address those risks, while eroding confidence in AI systems and the organizations that develop them. A 2019 study found over 80 organizations that published and adopted "AI ethics principles'', and more have joined since. But the principles often leave a gap between the "what" and the "how" of trustworthy AI development. Such gaps have enabled questionable or ethically dubious behavior, which casts doubts on the trustworthiness of specific organizations, and the field more broadly. There is thus an urgent need for concrete methods that both enable AI developers to prevent harm and allow them to demonstrate their trustworthiness through verifiable behavior. Below, we explore mechanisms (drawn from arXiv:2004.07213) for creating an ecosystem where AI developers can earn trust - if they are trustworthy. Better assessment of developer trustworthiness could inform user choice, employee actions, investment decisions, legal recourse, and emerging governance regimes. △ Less

Submitted 14 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Journal ref: Science (2021) Vol 374, Issue 6573, pp. 1327-1329

Evaluating CLIP: Towards Characterization of Broader Capabilities and Downstream Implications

Authors: Sandhini Agarwal, Gretchen Krueger, Jack Clark, Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Miles Brundage

Abstract: Recently, there have been breakthroughs in computer vision ("CV") models that are more generalizable with the advent of models such as CLIP and ALIGN. In this paper, we analyze CLIP and highlight some of the challenges such models pose. CLIP reduces the need for task specific training data, potentially opening up many niche tasks to automation. CLIP also allows its users to flexibly specify image… ▽ More Recently, there have been breakthroughs in computer vision ("CV") models that are more generalizable with the advent of models such as CLIP and ALIGN. In this paper, we analyze CLIP and highlight some of the challenges such models pose. CLIP reduces the need for task specific training data, potentially opening up many niche tasks to automation. CLIP also allows its users to flexibly specify image classification classes in natural language, which we find can shift how biases manifest. Additionally, through some preliminary probes we find that CLIP can inherit biases found in prior computer vision systems. Given the wide and unpredictable domain of uses for such models, this raises questions regarding what sufficiently safe behaviour for such systems may look like. These results add evidence to the growing body of work calling for a change in the notion of a 'better' model--to move beyond simply looking at higher accuracy at task-oriented capability evaluations, and towards a broader 'better' that takes into account deployment-critical features such as different use contexts, and people who interact with the model when thinking about model deployment. △ Less

Submitted 5 August, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

Comments: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2103.00020

Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code

Authors: Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter , et al. (33 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: We introduce Codex, a GPT language model fine-tuned on publicly available code from GitHub, and study its Python code-writing capabilities. A distinct production version of Codex powers GitHub Copilot. On HumanEval, a new evaluation set we release to measure functional correctness for synthesizing programs from docstrings, our model solves 28.8% of the problems, while GPT-3 solves 0% and GPT-J sol… ▽ More We introduce Codex, a GPT language model fine-tuned on publicly available code from GitHub, and study its Python code-writing capabilities. A distinct production version of Codex powers GitHub Copilot. On HumanEval, a new evaluation set we release to measure functional correctness for synthesizing programs from docstrings, our model solves 28.8% of the problems, while GPT-3 solves 0% and GPT-J solves 11.4%. Furthermore, we find that repeated sampling from the model is a surprisingly effective strategy for producing working solutions to difficult prompts. Using this method, we solve 70.2% of our problems with 100 samples per problem. Careful investigation of our model reveals its limitations, including difficulty with docstrings describing long chains of operations and with binding operations to variables. Finally, we discuss the potential broader impacts of deploying powerful code generation technologies, covering safety, security, and economics. △ Less

Submitted 14 July, 2021; v1 submitted 7 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Comments: corrected typos, added references, added authors, added acknowledgements

Understanding the Capabilities, Limitations, and Societal Impact of Large Language Models

Authors: Alex Tamkin, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Deep Ganguli

Abstract: On October 14th, 2020, researchers from OpenAI, the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, and other universities convened to discuss open research questions surrounding GPT-3, the largest publicly-disclosed dense language model at the time. The meeting took place under Chatham House Rules. Discussants came from a variety of research backgrounds including computer science,… ▽ More On October 14th, 2020, researchers from OpenAI, the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, and other universities convened to discuss open research questions surrounding GPT-3, the largest publicly-disclosed dense language model at the time. The meeting took place under Chatham House Rules. Discussants came from a variety of research backgrounds including computer science, linguistics, philosophy, political science, communications, cyber policy, and more. Broadly, the discussion centered around two main questions: 1) What are the technical capabilities and limitations of large language models? 2) What are the societal effects of widespread use of large language models? Here, we provide a detailed summary of the discussion organized by the two themes above. △ Less

Submitted 4 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims

Authors: Miles Brundage, Shahar Avin, Jasmine Wang, Haydn Belfield, Gretchen Krueger, Gillian Hadfield, Heidy Khlaaf, Jingying Yang, Helen Toner, Ruth Fong, Tegan Maharaj, Pang Wei Koh, Sara Hooker, Jade Leung, Andrew Trask, Emma Bluemke, Jonathan Lebensold, Cullen O'Keefe, Mark Koren, Théo Ryffel, JB Rubinovitz, Tamay Besiroglu, Federica Carugati, Jack Clark, Peter Eckersley , et al. (34 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they… ▽ More With the recent wave of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has come a growing awareness of the large-scale impacts of AI systems, and recognition that existing regulations and norms in industry and academia are insufficient to ensure responsible AI development. In order for AI developers to earn trust from system users, customers, civil society, governments, and other stakeholders that they are building AI responsibly, they will need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. Those outside of a given organization also need effective means of scrutinizing such claims. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems and their associated development processes, with a focus on providing evidence about the safety, security, fairness, and privacy protection of AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms. △ Less

Submitted 20 April, 2020; v1 submitted 15 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.

Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models

Authors: Irene Solaiman, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Radford, Gretchen Krueger, Jong Wook Kim, Sarah Kreps, Miles McCain, Alex Newhouse, Jason Blazakis, Kris McGuffie, Jasmine Wang

Abstract: Large language models have a range of beneficial uses: they can assist in prose, poetry, and programming; analyze dataset biases; and more. However, their flexibility and generative capabilities also raise misuse concerns. This report discusses OpenAI's work related to the release of its GPT-2 language model. It discusses staged release, which allows time between model releases to conduct risk and… ▽ More Large language models have a range of beneficial uses: they can assist in prose, poetry, and programming; analyze dataset biases; and more. However, their flexibility and generative capabilities also raise misuse concerns. This report discusses OpenAI's work related to the release of its GPT-2 language model. It discusses staged release, which allows time between model releases to conduct risk and benefit analyses as model sizes increased. It also discusses ongoing partnership-based research and provides recommendations for better coordination and responsible publication in AI. △ Less

Submitted 12 November, 2019; v1 submitted 24 August, 2019; originally announced August 2019.

Comments: 71 pages, report

ACM Class: I.2; I.2.7; K.4

The Role of Cooperation in Responsible AI Development

Authors: Amanda Askell, Miles Brundage, Gillian Hadfield

Abstract: In this paper, we argue that competitive pressures could incentivize AI companies to underinvest in ensuring their systems are safe, secure, and have a positive social impact. Ensuring that AI systems are developed responsibly may therefore require preventing and solving collective action problems between companies. We note that there are several key factors that improve the prospects for cooperat… ▽ More In this paper, we argue that competitive pressures could incentivize AI companies to underinvest in ensuring their systems are safe, secure, and have a positive social impact. Ensuring that AI systems are developed responsibly may therefore require preventing and solving collective action problems between companies. We note that there are several key factors that improve the prospects for cooperation in collective action problems. We use this to identify strategies to improve the prospects for industry cooperation on the responsible development of AI. △ Less

Submitted 10 July, 2019; originally announced July 2019.

Comments: 23 pages, 1 table

ACM Class: K.4.1; K.1

Between Progress and Potential Impact of AI: the Neglected Dimensions

Authors: Fernando Martínez-Plumed, Shahar Avin, Miles Brundage, Allan Dafoe, Sean Ó hÉigeartaigh, José Hernández-Orallo

Abstract: We reframe the analysis of progress in AI by incorporating into an overall framework both the task performance of a system, and the time and resource costs incurred in the development and deployment of the system. These costs include: data, expert knowledge, human oversight, software resources, computing cycles, hardware and network facilities, and (what kind of) time. These costs are distributed… ▽ More We reframe the analysis of progress in AI by incorporating into an overall framework both the task performance of a system, and the time and resource costs incurred in the development and deployment of the system. These costs include: data, expert knowledge, human oversight, software resources, computing cycles, hardware and network facilities, and (what kind of) time. These costs are distributed over the life cycle of the system, and may place differing demands on different developers and users. The multidimensional performance and cost space we present can be collapsed to a single utility metric that measures the value of the system for different stakeholders. Even without a single utility function, AI advances can be generically assessed by whether they expand the Pareto surface. We label these types of costs as neglected dimensions of AI progress, and explore them using four case studies: Alpha* (Go, Chess, and other board games), ALE (Atari games), ImageNet (Image classification) and Virtual Personal Assistants (Siri, Alexa, Cortana, and Google Assistant). This broader model of progress in AI will lead to novel ways of estimating the potential societal use and impact of an AI system, and the establishment of milestones for future progress. △ Less

Submitted 2 July, 2022; v1 submitted 2 June, 2018; originally announced June 2018.

The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation

Authors: Miles Brundage, Shahar Avin, Jack Clark, Helen Toner, Peter Eckersley, Ben Garfinkel, Allan Dafoe, Paul Scharre, Thomas Zeitzoff, Bobby Filar, Hyrum Anderson, Heather Roff, Gregory C. Allen, Jacob Steinhardt, Carrick Flynn, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, SJ Beard, Haydn Belfield, Sebastian Farquhar, Clare Lyle, Rebecca Crootof, Owain Evans, Michael Page, Joanna Bryson, Roman Yampolskiy , et al. (1 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: This report surveys the landscape of potential security threats from malicious uses of AI, and proposes ways to better forecast, prevent, and mitigate these threats. After analyzing the ways in which AI may influence the threat landscape in the digital, physical, and political domains, we make four high-level recommendations for AI researchers and other stakeholders. We also suggest several promis… ▽ More This report surveys the landscape of potential security threats from malicious uses of AI, and proposes ways to better forecast, prevent, and mitigate these threats. After analyzing the ways in which AI may influence the threat landscape in the digital, physical, and political domains, we make four high-level recommendations for AI researchers and other stakeholders. We also suggest several promising areas for further research that could expand the portfolio of defenses, or make attacks less effective or harder to execute. Finally, we discuss, but do not conclusively resolve, the long-term equilibrium of attackers and defenders. △ Less

Submitted 1 December, 2024; v1 submitted 20 February, 2018; originally announced February 2018.

A Brief Survey of Deep Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Kai Arulkumaran, Marc Peter Deisenroth, Miles Brundage, Anil Anthony Bharath

Abstract: Deep reinforcement learning is poised to revolutionise the field of AI and represents a step towards building autonomous systems with a higher level understanding of the visual world. Currently, deep learning is enabling reinforcement learning to scale to problems that were previously intractable, such as learning to play video games directly from pixels. Deep reinforcement learning algorithms are… ▽ More Deep reinforcement learning is poised to revolutionise the field of AI and represents a step towards building autonomous systems with a higher level understanding of the visual world. Currently, deep learning is enabling reinforcement learning to scale to problems that were previously intractable, such as learning to play video games directly from pixels. Deep reinforcement learning algorithms are also applied to robotics, allowing control policies for robots to be learned directly from camera inputs in the real world. In this survey, we begin with an introduction to the general field of reinforcement learning, then progress to the main streams of value-based and policy-based methods. Our survey will cover central algorithms in deep reinforcement learning, including the deep $Q$-network, trust region policy optimisation, and asynchronous advantage actor-critic. In parallel, we highlight the unique advantages of deep neural networks, focusing on visual understanding via reinforcement learning. To conclude, we describe several current areas of research within the field. △ Less

Submitted 28 September, 2017; v1 submitted 19 August, 2017; originally announced August 2017.

Comments: IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Special Issue on Deep Learning for Image Understanding (arXiv extended version)

On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines

Authors: Ben Garfinkel, Miles Brundage, Daniel Filan, Carrick Flynn, Jelena Luketina, Michael Page, Anders Sandberg, Andrew Snyder-Beattie, Max Tegmark

Abstract: In recent years, a number of prominent computer scientists, along with academics in fields such as philosophy and physics, have lent credence to the notion that machines may one day become as large as humans. Many have further argued that machines could even come to exceed human size by a significant margin. However, there are at least seven distinct arguments that preclude this outcome. We show t… ▽ More In recent years, a number of prominent computer scientists, along with academics in fields such as philosophy and physics, have lent credence to the notion that machines may one day become as large as humans. Many have further argued that machines could even come to exceed human size by a significant margin. However, there are at least seven distinct arguments that preclude this outcome. We show that it is not only implausible that machines will ever exceed human size, but in fact impossible. △ Less

Submitted 31 March, 2017; originally announced March 2017.

Comments: 9 pages, 2 figures

Conversion Rate Optimization through Evolutionary Computation

Authors: Risto Miikkulainen, Neil Iscoe, Aaron Shagrin, Ron Cordell, Sam Nazari, Cory Schoolland, Myles Brundage, Jonathan Epstein, Randy Dean, Gurmeet Lamba

Abstract: Conversion optimization means designing a web interface so that as many users as possible take a desired action on it, such as register or purchase. Such design is usually done by hand, testing one change at a time through A/B testing, or a limited number of combinations through multivariate testing, making it possible to evaluate only a small fraction of designs in a vast design space. This paper… ▽ More Conversion optimization means designing a web interface so that as many users as possible take a desired action on it, such as register or purchase. Such design is usually done by hand, testing one change at a time through A/B testing, or a limited number of combinations through multivariate testing, making it possible to evaluate only a small fraction of designs in a vast design space. This paper describes Sentient Ascend, an automatic conversion optimization system that uses evolutionary optimization to create effective web interface designs. Ascend makes it possible to discover and utilize interactions between the design elements that are difficult to identify otherwise. Moreover, evaluation of design candidates is done in parallel online, i.e. with a large number of real users interacting with the system. A case study on an existing media site shows that significant improvements (i.e. over 43%) are possible beyond human design. Ascend can therefore be seen as an approach to massively multivariate conversion optimization, based on a massively parallel interactive evolution. △ Less

Submitted 30 April, 2017; v1 submitted 1 March, 2017; originally announced March 2017.

Smart Policies for Artificial Intelligence

Authors: Miles Brundage, Joanna Bryson

Abstract: We argue that there already exists de facto artificial intelligence policy - a patchwork of policies impacting the field of AI's development in myriad ways. The key question related to AI policy, then, is not whether AI should be governed at all, but how it is currently being governed, and how that governance might become more informed, integrated, effective, and anticipatory. We describe the main… ▽ More We argue that there already exists de facto artificial intelligence policy - a patchwork of policies impacting the field of AI's development in myriad ways. The key question related to AI policy, then, is not whether AI should be governed at all, but how it is currently being governed, and how that governance might become more informed, integrated, effective, and anticipatory. We describe the main components of de facto AI policy and make some recommendations for how AI policy can be improved, drawing on lessons from other scientific and technological domains. △ Less

Submitted 29 August, 2016; originally announced August 2016.

Comments: This is a draft of an article being revised - feedback is welcome

Modeling Progress in AI

Authors: Miles Brundage

Abstract: Participants in recent discussions of AI-related issues ranging from intelligence explosion to technological unemployment have made diverse claims about the nature, pace, and drivers of progress in AI. However, these theories are rarely specified in enough detail to enable systematic evaluation of their assumptions or to extrapolate progress quantitatively, as is often done with some success in ot… ▽ More Participants in recent discussions of AI-related issues ranging from intelligence explosion to technological unemployment have made diverse claims about the nature, pace, and drivers of progress in AI. However, these theories are rarely specified in enough detail to enable systematic evaluation of their assumptions or to extrapolate progress quantitatively, as is often done with some success in other technological domains. After reviewing relevant literatures and justifying the need for more rigorous modeling of AI progress, this paper contributes to that research program by suggesting ways to account for the relationship between hardware speed increases and algorithmic improvements in AI, the role of human inputs in enabling AI capabilities, and the relationships between different sub-fields of AI. It then outlines ways of tailoring AI progress models to generate insights on the specific issue of technological unemployment, and outlines future directions for research on AI progress. △ Less

Submitted 17 December, 2015; originally announced December 2015.

Comments: AAAI 2016 Workshop on AI, Ethics, and Society