27 research outputs found

    Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

    Get PDF
    This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark

    Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

    Get PDF
    This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark

    Performance and characterization of the SPT-3G digital frequency-domain multiplexed readout system using an improved noise and crosstalk model

    Get PDF
    The third-generation South Pole Telescope camera (SPT-3G) improves upon its predecessor (SPTpol) by an order of magnitude increase in detectors on the focal plane. The technology used to read out and control these detectors, digital frequency-domain multiplexing (DfMUX), is conceptually the same as used for SPTpol, but extended to accommodate more detectors. A nearly 5× expansion in the readout operating bandwidth has enabled the use of this large focal plane, and SPT-3G performance meets the forecasting targets relevant to its science objectives. However, the electrical dynamics of the higher-bandwidth readout differ from predictions based on models of the SPTpol system due to the higher frequencies used and parasitic impedances associated with new cryogenic electronic architecture. To address this, we present an updated derivation for electrical crosstalk in higher-bandwidth DfMUX systems and identify two previously uncharacterized contributions to readout noise, which become dominant at high bias frequency. The updated crosstalk and noise models successfully describe the measured crosstalk and readout noise performance of SPT-3G. These results also suggest specific changes to warm electronics component values, wire-harness properties, and SQUID parameters, to improve the readout system for future experiments using DfMUX, such as the LiteBIRD space telescope

    Porn, pantomime and protest: the politics of bawdiness as feminine style

    No full text
    This article explores the significance of the recent ‘Face-Sitting’ protest that took place outside Westminster in 2014. A carefully staged response to changes to pornography legislation that criminalized particular sexual practices pertinent to women’s pleasure, this porn-panto protest put the spectacle of the ‘kinky’ woman and her desires centre stage. The activists’ unique use of fetish dress, class and humour is explored in relation to the protest by brothel keeper and campaigner Cynthia Payne in the 1970s/1980s. Payne deployed bawdy humour and a particular high camp use of ‘kinky’ dress and English etiquette to undermine contemporary sexual norms. The 2014 protest also clearly reclaimed two traditional roles within English pantomime: the Dame and the Principal Boy. These examples will be used to examine the political function of humour in relation to cross-dressing and the ‘woman-on-top’. Ultimately, this study argues that ‘bawdiness’ is a politics that offers us potential promise but not without critical limitations established through media representations

    Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

    Get PDF
    This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark
    corecore