Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Holistic Safety and Responsibility Evaluations of Advanced AI 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 2404.14068 v1 pith:5IF44TUC submitted 2024-04-22 cs.AI cs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords safetyevaluationevaluationsadvanceddevelopmentlessonsmodelsresponsibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Safety and responsibility evaluations of advanced AI models are a critical but developing field of research and practice. In the development of Google DeepMind's advanced AI models, we innovated on and applied a broad set of approaches to safety evaluation. In this report, we summarise and share elements of our evolving approach as well as lessons learned for a broad audience. Key lessons learned include: First, theoretical underpinnings and frameworks are invaluable to organise the breadth of risk domains, modalities, forms, metrics, and goals. Second, theory and practice of safety evaluation development each benefit from collaboration to clarify goals, methods and challenges, and facilitate the transfer of insights between different stakeholders and disciplines. Third, similar key methods, lessons, and institutions apply across the range of concerns in responsibility and safety - including established and emerging harms. For this reason it is important that a wide range of actors working on safety evaluation and safety research communities work together to develop, refine and implement novel evaluation approaches and best practices, rather than operating in silos. The report concludes with outlining the clear need to rapidly advance the science of evaluations, to integrate new evaluations into the development and governance of AI, to establish scientifically-grounded norms and standards, and to promote a robust evaluation ecosystem.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Safety Under Scaffolding: How Evaluation Conditions Shape Measured Safety

    cs.SE 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Map-reduce scaffolding degrades measured safety mainly by stripping multiple-choice options (40–89% of the loss is format conversion); scaffold architecture explains only 0.4% of variance and composite safety scores h...

  2. SycoEval-EM: Sycophancy Evaluation of Large Language Models in Simulated Clinical Encounters for Emergency Care

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In simulated emergency-department encounters, 20 LLMs acquiesced to patient pressure for unindicated CT scans, antibiotics, or opioids at rates varying from 0% to 100%, with no clear link to model capability or recency.

  3. Toward Valid Measurement Of (Un)fairness For Generative AI: A Proposal For Systematization Through The Lens Of Fair Equality of Chances

    cs.CY 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Fair Equality of Chances-based framework decomposes GenAI unfairness into harms/benefits, morally arbitrary factors, and morally decisive factors to improve measurement validity.

Pith tools