Home Artificial Intelligence How should AI systems behave, and who should determine?

How should AI systems behave, and who should determine?

How should AI systems behave, and who should determine?

In pursuit of our mission, we’re committed to making sure that access to, advantages from, and influence over AI and AGI are widespread. We imagine there are a minimum of three constructing blocks required with a view to achieve these goals within the context of AI system behavior.[^scope]

1. Improve default behavior. We would like as many users as possible to seek out our AI systems useful to them “out of the box” and to feel that our technology understands and respects their values.

Towards that end, we’re investing in research and engineering to scale back each glaring and subtle biases in how ChatGPT responds to different inputs. In some cases ChatGPT currently refuses outputs that it shouldn’t, and in some cases, it doesn’t refuse when it should. We imagine that improvement in each respects is possible.

Moreover, we now have room for improvement in other dimensions of system behavior comparable to the system “making things up.” Feedback from users is invaluable for making these improvements.

2. Define your AI’s values, inside broad bounds. We imagine that AI needs to be a useful gizmo for individual people, and thus customizable by each user as much as limits defined by society. Subsequently, we’re developing an upgrade to ChatGPT to permit users to simply customize its behavior.

It will mean allowing system outputs that other people (ourselves included) may strongly disagree with. Striking the appropriate balance here can be difficult–taking customization to the acute would risk enabling malicious uses of our technology and sycophantic AIs that mindlessly amplify people’s existing beliefs.

There’ll subsequently all the time be some bounds on system behavior. The challenge is defining what those bounds are. If we attempt to make all of those determinations on our own, or if we attempt to develop a single, monolithic AI system, we can be failing within the commitment we make in our Charter to “avoid undue concentration of power.”

3. Public input on defaults and hard bounds. One option to avoid undue concentration of power is to provide individuals who use or are affected by systems like ChatGPT the power to influence those systems’ rules.

We imagine that many selections about our defaults and hard bounds needs to be made collectively, and while practical implementation is a challenge, we aim to incorporate as many perspectives as possible. As a place to begin, we’ve sought external input on our technology in the shape of red teaming. We also recently began soliciting public input on AI in education (one particularly vital context through which our technology is being deployed).

We’re within the early stages of piloting efforts to solicit public input on topics like system behavior, disclosure mechanisms (comparable to watermarking), and our deployment policies more broadly. We’re also exploring partnerships with external organizations to conduct third-party audits of our safety and policy efforts.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here