Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
11 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Concrete Problems in AI Safety, Revisited (2401.10899v1)

Published 18 Dec 2023 in cs.CY and cs.AI

Abstract: As AI systems proliferate in society, the AI community is increasingly preoccupied with the concept of AI Safety, namely the prevention of failures due to accidents that arise from an unanticipated departure of a system's behavior from designer intent in AI deployment. We demonstrate through an analysis of real world cases of such incidents that although current vocabulary captures a range of the encountered issues of AI deployment, an expanded socio-technical framing will be required for a more complete understanding of how AI systems and implemented safety mechanisms fail and succeed in real life.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (36)
  1. Concrete Problems in AI Safety. arXiv:1606.06565 [cs], June 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565. arXiv: 1606.06565.
  2. Exploring or exploiting? social and ethical implications of autonomous experimentation in ai. In Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning, 2016.
  3. Abeba Birhane and Jelle van Dijk. Robot rights? let’s talk about human welfare instead. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.05046, 2020.
  4. National Transportation Safety Board. Collision between a car operating with automated vehicle control systems and a tractor-semitrailer truck, 2017a. URL https://ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY18FH010.aspx.
  5. National Transportation Safety Board. Driver errors, overreliance on automation, lack of safeguards, led to fatal tesla crash, 2017b. URL https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/pages/pr20170912.aspx.
  6. National Transportation Safety Board. Collision between vehicle controlled by developmental automated driving system and pedestrian, 2018. URL https://ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY18FH010.aspx.
  7. ” you might also like:” privacy risks of collaborative filtering. In 2011 IEEE symposium on security and privacy, pp. 231–246. IEEE, 2011.
  8. On evaluating adversarial robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06705, 2019.
  9. Show your work: Improved reporting of experimental results. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03004, 2019.
  10. Three Reasons Why: Framing the Challenges of Assuring AI. In Alexander Romanovsky, Elena Troubitsyna, Ilir Gashi, Erwin Schoitsch, and Friedemann Bitsch (eds.), Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 281–287, Cham, 2019. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-26250-1. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-26250-1˙22.
  11. A general safety framework for learning-based control in uncertain robotic systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 64(7):2737–2752, 2018.
  12. The netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 6(4):1–19, 2015.
  13. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Eamon Dolan Books, 2019.
  14. Ai safety gridworlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09883, 2017a.
  15. AI Safety Gridworlds. November 2017b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.09883.
  16. Sidneyeve Matrix. The netflix effect: Teens, binge watching, and on-demand digital media trends. Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures, 6(1):119–138, 2014.
  17. How to break anonymity of the netflix prize dataset. arXiv preprint cs/0610105, 2006.
  18. Laurent Orseau and MS Armstrong. Safely interruptible agents. 2016.
  19. Pots: Protective optimization technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02711, 2018.
  20. SoK: Security and privacy in machine learning. In 2018 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), pp.  399–414. IEEE, 2018.
  21. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors, 39(2):230–253, 1997.
  22. Safe exploration techniques for reinforcement learning–an overview. In International Workshop on Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems, pp.  357–375. Springer, 2014.
  23. Saving face: Investigating the ethical concerns of facial recognition auditing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00964, 2020.
  24. Charlie Schmidt. Md anderson breaks with ibm watson, raising questions about artificial intelligence in oncology. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 109(5), 2017.
  25. Green ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10597, 2019.
  26. Towards verified artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08514, 2016.
  27. Ryan Singel. Netflix spilled your brokeback mountain secret, lawsuit claims. Threat Level (blog), Wired, 2009.
  28. Ryan Singel. Netflix cancels recommendation contest after privacy lawsuit. Retrieved March, 29:2018, 2010.
  29. Eliza Strickland. Ibm watson, heal thyself: How ibm overpromised and underdelivered on ai health care. IEEE Spectrum, 56(4):24–31, 2019.
  30. Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02243, 2019.
  31. Inc. Tesla. Tesla vehicle safety report. https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport, 2019.
  32. The University of Texas System Administration. Special review of procurement procedures related to the m.d. anderson cancer center oncology expert advisor project, 2016.
  33. Towards Dynamic Safety Management for Autonomous Systems. In Engineering Safe Autonomy, pp.  193–204, 2019. ISBN 978-1-72936-176-4.
  34. Inc. Uber. Uber atg safety report. https://www.uber.com/us/en/atg/safety/, 2019.
  35. Kush R. Varshney. Engineering Safety in Machine Learning. arXiv:1601.04126 [cs, stat], January 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04126. arXiv: 1601.04126.
  36. Eric Weiss. ‘inadequate safety culture’ contributed to uber automated test vehicle crash - ntsb calls for federal review process for automated vehicle testing on public roads, 2019. URL https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20191119c.aspx.
Citations (9)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

  • The paper introduces a critical socio-technical perspective on AI safety that transcends traditional technical metrics.
  • It employs detailed case studies in autonomous vehicles, content recommendation systems, and healthcare to expose safety pitfalls.
  • It advocates for integrating practical engineering practices and stakeholder engagement to refine AI safety measures.

Concrete Problems in AI Safety, Revisited: Summary and Insights

The paper "Concrete Problems in AI Safety, Revisited" by Inioluwa Deborah Raji and Roel Dobbe critically examines contemporary frameworks for articulating and addressing AI safety challenges, particularly in real-world deployments. The emphasis is on augmenting the existing understanding with a socio-technical perspective, recognizing that real-world failures often transcend purely technical considerations. By analyzing concrete incidents, the authors illustrate the limitations of current theoretical models and emphasize the importance of embedding engineering practices and stakeholder dynamics into safety discussions.

Overview of Methodology

The authors employ the taxonomy proposed by Amodei et al. (2016) for identifying salient AI safety issues but enrich this framework by considering the complex socio-technical dimensions of real-world failures. They scrutinize three core aspects of AI safety—safe exploration, avoiding negative side effects, and scalable oversight—using detailed case studies from the domains of autonomous vehicles, content recommendation systems, and healthcare, respectively. These cases elucidate how AI systems' socio-technical environments exacerbate safety challenges.

Key Findings

  1. Safe Exploration: The risk associated with autonomous systems during exploration phases is highlighted through incidents involving autonomous vehicles, notably Tesla and Uber. These cases underscore the inadequacy of existing safety measures and the ethical dilemmas posed by deploying immature technologies in public domains. Technical failures combined with ineffective safety protocols, as well as the overreliance on automation, are identified as significant contributors to these incidents.
  2. Avoiding Negative Side Effects: The discussion extends to AI systems causing inadvertent harm, such as the privacy infringements associated with Netflix's recommendation algorithms. The paper emphasizes the power imbalances and inherent trade-offs at play, urging for an evaluation framework that accommodates the broader ethical implications of AI deployments.
  3. Scalable Oversight: Scalable oversight is notably discussed in the context of IBM Watson's application in healthcare, where limitations in data lead to suboptimal and potentially harmful recommendations. This identifies the challenges when proxy data or indirect performance metrics impinge on machine learning system reliability.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings draw attention to several imperative directions for both theoretical and applied AI safety research:

  • Integration of Engineering Practices: Improved AI safety necessitates consideration beyond theoretical formulations to include practical engineering tasks such as designing, implementing, and maintaining AI systems. Recognizing and learning from errors during these phases via empirical approaches can mitigate future incidents.
  • Inductive Reasoning in Safety Validation: A shift towards iteratively validating AI systems in real-world contexts is advocated. This approach would fine-tune safety mechanisms by meticulously examining stakeholder interactions and their effects over time, promoting a nuanced understanding of socio-technical interplay.
  • Stakeholder-Led Safety Deliberations: The research recommends that AI systems, especially in sensitive applications, need to foster stakeholder engagement to define safety criteria collectively. This promotes a socio-technical framing of AI safety akin to participatory design, necessary for aligning system capabilities with societal values.

Conclusion

The paper convincingly argues for a comprehensive overhaul in addressing AI safety, suggesting that a purely technological focus is insufficient for understanding and mitigating real-world system failures. By emphasizing socio-technical interactions and reinforcing the importance of stakeholder engagement, it identifies pathways to fundamentally transform how safety measures are conceived and implemented in AI systems. This transformation is seen as critical for fostering AI systems that are both functional and trustworthy in their designated environments.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown