We need a clear definition of bad AI before we can know what is -not- that I think. These benchmarks seem to itemize AI as if it will have known, concrete components. But I think we need to first compose in the abstract a runaway self sustaining AI, and work backwards to see which pieces are already in place for it.
I haven't kept up with this community for many years, so I have some catching up to do, but I am currently on the hunt for the most clear and concise places where the various runaway scenarios are laid out. I know there is a wealth of literature, I have the Bostrom book from years ago as well, but I think simplicity is the key here. In other words, where is the AI redline ?
yea that's cool to see. Very similar attempt at categorization. I feel we get caught up often in the potential / theoretical capabilities of systems. But there are already plenty of systems that fulfill self-replicating, harmful, intelligent behaviors. It's entirely a question of degrees. That's why a visual ranking of all systems' metrics is in order I think.
Defining what comprises a 'system' would be the other big challenge. Is a hostile government a system? That's fairly intelligent and self-replicating. etc.
This is an executive summary of a post from my personal blog, also cross-posted from the EA Forum. Read the full texts here.
Summary
Benchmarks support the empirical, quantitative evaluation of progress in AI research. Although benchmarks are ubiquitous in most subfields of machine learning, they are still rare in the subfield of AI safety.
I argue that creating benchmarks should be a high priority for AI safety. While this idea is not new, I think it may still be underrated. Among other benefits, benchmarks would make it much easier to:
Unfortunately, we cannot assume that good benchmarks will be developed quickly enough “by default." I discuss several reasons to expect them to be undersupplied. I also outline actions that different groups can take today to accelerate their development.
For example, AI safety researchers can help by:
And AI governance professionals can help by:
Ultimately, we can and should begin to build benchmark-making capability now.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Ben Garfinkel and Owen Cotton-Barratt for their mentorship, Emma Bluemke and many others at the Centre for the Governance of AI for their warmhearted support. All views and errors are my own.
Future research
I am working on a paper on the topic, and if you are interested in benchmarks and model evaluation, especially if you are a technical AI safety researcher, I would love to hear from you!