Benjamin Hilton

Tomek Korbak, Joshua Clymer, Benjamin Hilton et al.

As LLM agents gain a greater capacity to cause harm, AI developers might increasingly rely on control measures such as monitoring to justify that they are safe. We sketch how developers could construct a "control safety case", which is a structured argument that models are incapable of subverting control measures in order to cause unacceptable outcomes. As a case study, we sketch an argument that a hypothetical LLM agent deployed internally at an AI company won't exfiltrate sensitive information. The sketch relies on evidence from a "control evaluation,"' where a red team deliberately designs models to exfiltrate data in a proxy for the deployment environment. The safety case then hinges on several claims: (1) the red team adequately elicits model capabilities to exfiltrate data, (2) control measures remain at least as effective in deployment, and (3) developers conservatively extrapolate model performance to predict the probability of data exfiltration in deployment. This safety case sketch is a step toward more concrete arguments that can be used to show that a dangerously capable LLM agent is safe to deploy.

Benjamin Hilton, Marie Davidsen Buhl, Tomek Korbak et al.

Safety cases - clear, assessable arguments for the safety of a system in a given context - are a widely-used technique across various industries for showing a decision-maker (e.g. boards, customers, third parties) that a system is safe. In this paper, we cover how and why frontier AI developers might also want to use safety cases. We then argue that writing and reviewing safety cases would substantially assist in the fulfilment of many of the Frontier AI Safety Commitments. Finally, we outline open research questions on the methodology, implementation, and technical details of safety cases.

Marie Davidsen Buhl, Jacob Pfau, Benjamin Hilton et al.

If AI systems match or exceed human capabilities on a wide range of tasks, it may become difficult for humans to efficiently judge their actions -- making it hard to use human feedback to steer them towards desirable traits. One proposed solution is to leverage another superhuman system to point out flaws in the system's outputs via a debate. This paper outlines the value of debate for AI safety, as well as the assumptions and further research required to make debate work. It does so by sketching an ``alignment safety case'' -- an argument that an AI system will not autonomously take actions which could lead to egregious harm, despite being able to do so. The sketch focuses on the risk of an AI R\&D agent inside an AI company sabotaging research, for example by producing false results. To prevent this, the agent is trained via debate, subject to exploration guarantees, to teach the system to be honest. Honesty is maintained throughout deployment via online training. The safety case rests on four key claims: (1) the agent has become good at the debate game, (2) good performance in the debate game implies that the system is mostly honest, (3) the system will not become significantly less honest during deployment, and (4) the deployment context is tolerant of some errors. We identify open research problems that, if solved, could render this a compelling argument that an AI system is safe.