DeepMind's "​​Frontier Safety Framework" is weak and unambitious

By Zach Stein-Perlman @ 2024-05-18T03:00 (+54)

This is a crosspost, probably from LessWrong. Try viewing it there.

null
SummaryBot @ 2024-05-20T20:29 (+1)

Executive summary: DeepMind's "Frontier Safety Framework" for AI development is a step in the right direction but lacks ambition, specificity, and firm commitments compared to other labs' responsible scaling plans.

Key points:

  1. The Frontier Safety Framework (FSF) involves evaluating models for dangerous capabilities at regular intervals, but the details are vague and not committed to.
  2. The FSF discusses potential security and deployment mitigations based on risk assessments, but does not specify triggers or make advance commitments.
  3. DeepMind's security practices seem behind other labs, e.g. allowing unilateral access to model weights at most levels.
  4. The FSF's capability thresholds for concern ("Critical Capability Levels") seem quite high.
  5. Compared to Anthropic, OpenAI, and Microsoft's responsible scaling plans, DeepMind's FSF is less ambitious, specific, and committed to. Meta has no public plan.
  6. The FSF may have been rushed out and the DeepMind safety team likely has better, more detailed (but unpublished) plans.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.