Abstract:A concern about cutting-edge or "frontier" AI foundation models is that an adversary may use the models for preparing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, (CBRN), cyber, or other attacks. At least two methods can identify foundation models with potential dual-use capability; each has advantages and disadvantages: A. Open benchmarks (based on openly available questions and answers), which are low-cost but accuracy-limited by the need to omit security-sensitive details; and B. Closed red team evaluations (based on private evaluation by CBRN and cyber experts), which are higher-cost but can achieve higher accuracy by incorporating sensitive details. We propose a research and risk-management approach using a combination of methods including both open benchmarks and closed red team evaluations, in a way that leverages advantages of both methods. We recommend that one or more groups of researchers with sufficient resources and access to a range of near-frontier and frontier foundation models run a set of foundation models through dual-use capability evaluation benchmarks and red team evaluations, then analyze the resulting sets of models' scores on benchmark and red team evaluations to see how correlated those are. If, as we expect, there is substantial correlation between the dual-use potential benchmark scores and the red team evaluation scores, then implications include the following: The open benchmarks should be used frequently during foundation model development as a quick, low-cost measure of a model's dual-use potential; and if a particular model gets a high score on the dual-use potential benchmark, then more in-depth red team assessments of that model's dual-use capability should be performed. We also discuss limitations and mitigations for our approach, e.g., if model developers try to game benchmarks by including a version of benchmark test data in a model's training data.

The GPT Dilemma: Foundation Models and the Shadow of Dual-Use

Mind the Gap: Foundation Models and the Covert Proliferation of Military Intelligence, Surveillance, and Targeting

Benchmark Early and Red Team Often: A Framework for Assessing and Managing Dual-Use Hazards of AI Foundation Models

Confidence-Building Measures for Artificial Intelligence: Workshop Proceedings

Governing dual-use technologies: Case studies of international security agreements and lessons for AI governance

Defense Priorities in the Open-Source AI Debate: A Preliminary Assessment

Countering Autonomous Cyber Threats

Acceptable Use Policies for Foundation Models

Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with dual-use AI technology

Self-Destructing Models: Increasing the Costs of Harmful Dual Uses of Foundation Models

Artificial Intelligence and International Security: The Long View

Engines of Power: Electricity, AI, and General-Purpose Military Transformations

Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making

Artificial intelligence and biological misuse: Differentiating risks of language models and biological design tools

The Real Dangers of Generative AI

Building Trust: Foundations of Security, Safety and Transparency in AI

Artificial intelligence for wargaming and modeling

Mapping the individual, social, and biospheric impacts of Foundation Models

Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilities

The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously

Coordinated Disclosure of Dual-Use Capabilities: An Early Warning System for Advanced AI