arXiv AI

AI Security Research Should Better Incentivize Defense Research

The article discusses a notable imbalance in AI security research, where studies on attacking AI systems outnumber those on defending them. It highlights that this skew is evident across various subfields such as federated learning, speech recognition, membership inference, and large language models. The authors argue that attack papers often benefit from favorable evaluation conditions, whereas defense papers face stricter standards, resulting in a literature rich in vulnerabilities but lacking robust, deployable protections.

arXiv AI
Sep 4

Reducing Catastrophic Risk from AI with Systematic Monitoring and Evaluation of Rogue AI Progression

The article proposes a structured framework of behavioral indicators that could signal a progression toward potentially catastrophic threats from AI systems. Drawing on established methods from cybersecurity and national security, it defines clear metrics, indicators, and thresholds across multiple dimensions of AI capability and behavior. The framework is intended to enable researchers and policymakers to implement evidence‑based monitoring protocols for rogue AI progression.

By T. Bauer, W. P. Kegelmeyer, E. Begoli, A. Sadovnik, T. Emerson, C. Corley, N. Generous, J. Moore, B. Bartoldson, R. Goldhan, M. Goldman, M. Greaves, M. J. D. Vermeer, B. MacLennan, D. Schulker, N. VanHoudnos, J. Bansemer, Y. Bengio
arXiv AI
Jul 31

AI Security Priorities: A Field-Wide Agenda

arXiv:2607. 26069v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems are rapidly integrated into critical economic, governmental, and national security functions, the gap between AI adoption and AI security readiness continues to widen.

By Gil Gekker, Rachel Steratore, Everett Smith, Asher Brass-Gershovich, Varun Gandhi, Nicole Nichols, Vijay Bolina, Buck Shlegeris, Lisa Einstein, Dan Lahav, Omer Nevo, Sella Nevo
arXiv AI
Sep 10

A Translational Note on AI Safety Evaluation

The article discusses how automated red‑teaming can uncover more vulnerabilities at lower cost than human red‑teaming on AI safety benchmarks, yet this comparison conflates measurement with conclusion. It argues that benchmarks only assess harms within a predefined set, leaving a "threat‑model coverage gap" that can hide new risks, as seen in non‑English prompts. The authors suggest that evaluators from deployment contexts distinct from developers are needed to close this gap.

By Madhava Gaikwad