Mike Kuniavsky

Shaona Ghosh, Heather Frase, Adina Williams et al. · deepmind, stanford

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

Max Parks, Kheli Atluru, Meera Vinod et al.

In this paper, we develop the position that current frameworks for evaluating emotional intelligence (EI) in artificial intelligence (AI) systems need refinement because they do not adequately or comprehensively measure the various aspects of EI relevant in AI. Human EI often involves a phenomenological component and a sense of understanding that artificially intelligent systems lack; therefore, some aspects of EI are irrelevant in evaluating AI systems. However, EI also includes an ability to sense an emotional state, explain it, respond appropriately, and adapt to new contexts (e.g., multicultural), and artificially intelligent systems can do such things to greater or lesser degrees. Several benchmark frameworks specialize in evaluating the capacity of different AI models to perform some tasks related to EI, but these often lack a solid foundation regarding the nature of emotion and what it is to be emotionally intelligent. In this project, we begin by reviewing different theories about emotion and general EI, evaluating the extent to which each is applicable to artificial systems. We then critically evaluate the available benchmark frameworks, identifying where each falls short in light of the account of EI developed in the first section. Lastly, we outline some options for improving evaluation strategies to avoid these shortcomings in EI evaluation in AI systems.