Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Coordinated pausing: An evaluation-based coordination scheme for frontier AI developers

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 2310.00374 v1 pith:NQXM6DUM submitted 2023-09-30 cs.CY

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

As artificial intelligence (AI) models are scaled up, new capabilities can emerge unintentionally and unpredictably, some of which might be dangerous. In response, dangerous capabilities evaluations have emerged as a new risk assessment tool. But what should frontier AI developers do if sufficiently dangerous capabilities are in fact discovered? This paper focuses on one possible response: coordinated pausing. It proposes an evaluation-based coordination scheme that consists of five main steps: (1) Frontier AI models are evaluated for dangerous capabilities. (2) Whenever, and each time, a model fails a set of evaluations, the developer pauses certain research and development activities. (3) Other developers are notified whenever a model with dangerous capabilities has been discovered. They also pause related research and development activities. (4) The discovered capabilities are analyzed and adequate safety precautions are put in place. (5) Developers only resume their paused activities if certain safety thresholds are reached. The paper also discusses four concrete versions of that scheme. In the first version, pausing is completely voluntary and relies on public pressure on developers. In the second version, participating developers collectively agree to pause under certain conditions. In the third version, a single auditor evaluates models of multiple developers who agree to pause if any model fails a set of evaluations. In the fourth version, developers are legally required to run evaluations and pause if dangerous capabilities are discovered. Finally, the paper discusses the desirability and feasibility of our proposed coordination scheme. It concludes that coordinated pausing is a promising mechanism for tackling emerging risks from frontier AI models. However, a number of practical and legal obstacles need to be overcome, especially how to avoid violations of antitrust law.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantifying detection rates for dangerous capabilities: a theoretical model of dangerous capability evaluations

    cs.AI 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new model quantifies how test sensitivity, capability growth, and threshold placement determine bias and detection lag in dangerous AI evaluations.

  2. What AI evaluations for preventing catastrophic risks can and cannot do

    cs.CY 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    AI evaluations can establish lower bounds on capabilities but cannot establish upper bounds, forecast future capabilities robustly, or assess misalignment risk, so they should not be the primary basis for AI safety decisions.

Pith tools