Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Hazards from Increasingly Accessible Fine-Tuning of Downloadable Foundation Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.14751 v1 pith:SZAYN2KY submitted 2023-12-22 cs.LG cs.CY

classification cs.LGcs.CY
keywords fine-tuningaccessiblemodelsdownloadablehazardsincreasinglycostfoundation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Public release of the weights of pretrained foundation models, otherwise known as downloadable access \citep{solaiman_gradient_2023}, enables fine-tuning without the prohibitive expense of pretraining. Our work argues that increasingly accessible fine-tuning of downloadable models may increase hazards. First, we highlight research to improve the accessibility of fine-tuning. We split our discussion into research that A) reduces the computational cost of fine-tuning and B) improves the ability to share that cost across more actors. Second, we argue that increasingly accessible fine-tuning methods may increase hazard through facilitating malicious use and making oversight of models with potentially dangerous capabilities more difficult. Third, we discuss potential mitigatory measures, as well as benefits of more accessible fine-tuning. Given substantial remaining uncertainty about hazards, we conclude by emphasizing the urgent need for the development of mitigations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Forbidden Science: Dual-Use AI Challenge Benchmark and Scientific Refusal Tests

    cs.CL 2025-02 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A new 512-prompt benchmark claims to measure LLM over-refusal on scientific dual-use questions, but its design and labeling flaws undermine the claim.

Pith tools