Mary Phuong

Rohin Shah, Vikrant Varma, Ramana Kumar et al. · berkeley

The field of AI alignment is concerned with AI systems that pursue unintended goals. One commonly studied mechanism by which an unintended goal might arise is specification gaming, in which the designer-provided specification is flawed in a way that the designers did not foresee. However, an AI system may pursue an undesired goal even when the specification is correct, in the case of goal misgeneralization. Goal misgeneralization is a specific form of robustness failure for learning algorithms in which the learned program competently pursues an undesired goal that leads to good performance in training situations but bad performance in novel test situations. We demonstrate that goal misgeneralization can occur in practical systems by providing several examples in deep learning systems across a variety of domains. Extrapolating forward to more capable systems, we provide hypotheticals that illustrate how goal misgeneralization could lead to catastrophic risk. We suggest several research directions that could reduce the risk of goal misgeneralization for future systems.

Mary Phuong, Marcus Hutter

This document aims to be a self-contained, mathematically precise overview of transformer architectures and algorithms (*not* results). It covers what transformers are, how they are trained, what they are used for, their key architectural components, and a preview of the most prominent models. The reader is assumed to be familiar with basic ML terminology and simpler neural network architectures such as MLPs.

Andrew Draganov, Tolga H. Dur, Anandmayi Bhongade et al.

We present a data poisoning attack -- Phantom Transfer -- with the property that, even if you know precisely how the poison was placed into an otherwise benign dataset, you cannot filter it out. We achieve this by modifying subliminal learning to work in real-world contexts and demonstrate that the attack works regardless of which model produced the data, which model is trained on the data or what the attack target is. Furthermore, the attack survives 11 tested data-level defences, including one where every sample is paraphrased by another model. We characterise when this attack works best and show that it can be used to plant password-triggered behaviours into models while still beating defences. In short, we provide an existence proof that maximum-affordance defences can fail to stop sophisticated data poisoning attacks. We suggest that future defences should be supplemented with white-box methods and post-training model audits.

Mary Phuong, Matthew Aitchison, Elliot Catt et al. · deepmind

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.

Tomek Korbak, Mikita Balesni, Elizabeth Barnes et al. · deepmind

AI systems that "think" in human language offer a unique opportunity for AI safety: we can monitor their chains of thought (CoT) for the intent to misbehave. Like all other known AI oversight methods, CoT monitoring is imperfect and allows some misbehavior to go unnoticed. Nevertheless, it shows promise and we recommend further research into CoT monitorability and investment in CoT monitoring alongside existing safety methods. Because CoT monitorability may be fragile, we recommend that frontier model developers consider the impact of development decisions on CoT monitorability.

Mary Phuong, Roland S. Zimmermann, Ziyue Wang et al.

Recent work has demonstrated the plausibility of frontier AI models scheming -- knowingly and covertly pursuing an objective misaligned with its developer's intentions. Such behavior could be very hard to detect, and if present in future advanced systems, could pose severe loss of control risk. It is therefore important for AI developers to rule out harm from scheming prior to model deployment. In this paper, we present a suite of scheming reasoning evaluations measuring two types of reasoning capabilities that we believe are prerequisites for successful scheming: First, we propose five evaluations of ability to reason about and circumvent oversight (stealth). Second, we present eleven evaluations for measuring a model's ability to instrumentally reason about itself, its environment and its deployment (situational awareness). We demonstrate how these evaluations can be used as part of a scheming inability safety case: a model that does not succeed on these evaluations is almost certainly incapable of causing severe harm via scheming in real deployment. We run our evaluations on current frontier models and find that none of them show concerning levels of either situational awareness or stealth.

Toby Shevlane, Sebastian Farquhar, Ben Garfinkel et al.

Current approaches to building general-purpose AI systems tend to produce systems with both beneficial and harmful capabilities. Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks. Developers must be able to identify dangerous capabilities (through "dangerous capability evaluations") and the propensity of models to apply their capabilities for harm (through "alignment evaluations"). These evaluations will become critical for keeping policymakers and other stakeholders informed, and for making responsible decisions about model training, deployment, and security.

Mary Phuong, Christoph H. Lampert

Knowledge distillation, i.e., one classifier being trained on the outputs of another classifier, is an empirically very successful technique for knowledge transfer between classifiers. It has even been observed that classifiers learn much faster and more reliably if trained with the outputs of another classifier as soft labels, instead of from ground truth data. So far, however, there is no satisfactory theoretical explanation of this phenomenon. In this work, we provide the first insights into the working mechanisms of distillation by studying the special case of linear and deep linear classifiers. Specifically, we prove a generalization bound that establishes fast convergence of the expected risk of a distillation-trained linear classifier. From the bound and its proof we extract three key factors that determine the success of distillation: * data geometry -- geometric properties of the data distribution, in particular class separation, has a direct influence on the convergence speed of the risk; * optimization bias -- gradient descent optimization finds a very favorable minimum of the distillation objective; and * strong monotonicity -- the expected risk of the student classifier always decreases when the size of the training set grows.