arXiv subjects

Andrew Strait

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Strait.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Open Technical Problems in Open-Weight AI Model Risk Management

Frontier AI models with openly available weights are steadily becoming more powerful and widely adopted. However, compared to proprietary models, open-weight models pose different opportunities and challenges for effective risk management. For example, they allow for more open research and testing. However, managing their risks is also challenging because they can be modified arbitrarily, used without oversight, and spread irreversibly. Currently, there is limited research on safety tooling specific to open-weight models. Addressing these gaps will be key to both realizing their benefits and mitigating their harms. In this paper, we present 16 open technical challenges for open-weight model safety involving training data, training algorithms, evaluations, deployment, and ecosystem monitoring. We conclude by discussing the nascent state of the field, emphasizing that openness about research, methods, and evaluations -- not just weights -- will be key to building a rigorous science of open-weight model risk management.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Multi-Turn Framework for Evaluating AI Misuse in Fraud and Cybercrime Scenarios

AI is increasingly being used to assist fraud and cybercrime. However, it is unclear the extent to which current large language models can provide useful information for complex criminal activity. Working with law enforcement and policy experts, we developed multi-turn evaluations for three fraud and cybercrime scenarios (romance scams, CEO impersonation, and identity theft). Our evaluations focus on text-to-text interactions. In each scenario, we evaluate whether models provide actionable assistance beyond information typically available on the web, as assessed by domain experts. We do so in ways designed to resemble real-world misuse, such as breaking down requests for fraud into a sequence of seemingly benign queries. We found that (1) current large language models provide minimal actionable information for fraud and cybercrime without the use of advanced jailbreaking techniques, (2) model safeguards have significant impact on the provision of information, with the two open-weight large language models fine-tuned to remove safety guardrails providing the most actionable and useful responses, and (3) decomposing requests into benign-seeming queries elicited more assistance than explicitly malicious framing or basic system-level jailbreaks. Overall, the results suggest that current text-generation models provide relatively minimal uplift for fraud and cybercrime through information provision, without extensive effort to circumvent safeguards. This work contributes a reproducible, expert-grounded framework for tracking how these risks may evolve with time as models grow more capable and adversaries adapt.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI

Large language models (LLMs) distinguish themselves from previous technologies by functioning as collaborative ``thought partners,'' capable of engaging more fluidly in natural language on a range of tasks. As LLMs increasingly influence consequential decisions across diverse domains from healthcare to personal advice, the risk of overreliance -- relying on LLMs beyond their capabilities -- grows. This paper argues that measuring and mitigating overreliance must become central to LLM research and deployment. First, we consolidate risks from overreliance at both the individual and societal levels, including high-stakes errors, governance challenges, and cognitive deskilling. Then, we explore LLM characteristics, system design features, and user cognitive biases that together raise serious and unique concerns about overreliance on LLMs in practice. We also examine historical approaches for measuring overreliance, identifying three important gaps and proposing three promising directions to improve measurement. Finally, we propose mitigation strategies that can be pursued to ensure LLMs augment rather than undermine human capabilities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Lessons from a Chimp: AI "Scheming" and the Quest for Ape Language

We examine recent research that asks whether current AI systems may be developing a capacity for "scheming" (covertly and strategically pursuing misaligned goals). We compare current research practices in this field to those adopted in the 1970s to test whether non-human primates could master natural language. We argue that there are lessons to be learned from that historical research endeavour, which was characterised by an overattribution of human traits to other agents, an excessive reliance on anecdote and descriptive analysis, and a failure to articulate a strong theoretical framework for the research. We recommend that research into AI scheming actively seeks to avoid these pitfalls. We outline some concrete steps that can be taken for this research programme to advance in a productive and scientifically rigorous fashion.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Towards Best Practices for Open Datasets for LLM Training

Many AI companies are training their large language models (LLMs) on data without the permission of the copyright owners. The permissibility of doing so varies by jurisdiction: in countries like the EU and Japan, this is allowed under certain restrictions, while in the United States, the legal landscape is more ambiguous. Regardless of the legal status, concerns from creative producers have led to several high-profile copyright lawsuits, and the threat of litigation is commonly cited as a reason for the recent trend towards minimizing the information shared about training datasets by both corporate and public interest actors. This trend in limiting data information causes harm by hindering transparency, accountability, and innovation in the broader ecosystem by denying researchers, auditors, and impacted individuals access to the information needed to understand AI models. While this could be mitigated by training language models on open access and public domain data, at the time of writing, there are no such models (trained at a meaningful scale) due to the substantial technical and sociological challenges in assembling the necessary corpus. These challenges include incomplete and unreliable metadata, the cost and complexity of digitizing physical records, and the diverse set of legal and technical skills required to ensure relevance and responsibility in a quickly changing landscape. Building towards a future where AI systems can be trained on openly licensed data that is responsibly curated and governed requires collaboration across legal, technical, and policy domains, along with investments in metadata standards, digitization, and fostering a culture of openness.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

The Reality of AI and Biorisk

To accurately and confidently answer the question 'could an AI model or system increase biorisk', it is necessary to have both a sound theoretical threat model for how AI models or systems could increase biorisk and a robust method for testing that threat model. This paper provides an analysis of existing available research surrounding two AI and biorisk threat models: 1) access to information and planning via large language models (LLMs), and 2) the use of AI-enabled biological tools (BTs) in synthesizing novel biological artifacts. We find that existing studies around AI-related biorisk are nascent, often speculative in nature, or limited in terms of their methodological maturity and transparency. The available literature suggests that current LLMs and BTs do not pose an immediate risk, and more work is needed to develop rigorous approaches to understanding how future models could increase biorisks. We end with recommendations about how empirical work can be expanded to more precisely target biorisk and ensure rigor and validity of findings.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime

In July 2023, New York City (NYC) initiated the first algorithm auditing system for commercial machine-learning systems. Local Law 144 (LL 144) mandates NYC-based employers using automated employment decision-making tools (AEDTs) in hiring to undergo annual bias audits conducted by an independent auditor. This paper examines lessons from LL 144 for other national algorithm auditing attempts. Through qualitative interviews with 16 experts and practitioners within the regime, we find that LL 144 has not effectively established an auditing regime. The law fails to clearly define key aspects, such as AEDTs and independent auditors, leading auditors, AEDT vendors, and companies using AEDTs to define the law's practical implementation in ways that failed to protect job applicants. Contributing factors include the law's flawed transparency-driven theory of change, industry lobbying narrowing the definition of AEDTs, practical and cultural challenges faced by auditors in accessing data, and wide disagreement over what constitutes a legitimate auditor, resulting in four distinct 'auditor roles.' We conclude with four recommendations for policymakers seeking to create similar bias auditing regimes, emphasizing clearer definitions, metrics, and increased accountability. By exploring LL 144 through the lens of auditors, our paper advances the evidence base around audit as an accountability mechanism, providing guidance for policymakers seeking to create similar regimes.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Going public: the role of public participation approaches in commercial AI labs

In recent years, discussions of responsible AI practices have seen growing support for "participatory AI" approaches, intended to involve members of the public in the design and development of AI systems. Prior research has identified a lack of standardised methods or approaches for how to use participatory approaches in the AI development process. At present, there is a dearth of evidence on attitudes to and approaches for participation in the sites driving major AI developments: commercial AI labs. Through 12 semi-structured interviews with industry practitioners and subject-matter experts, this paper explores how commercial AI labs understand participatory AI approaches and the obstacles they have faced implementing these practices in the development of AI systems and research. We find that while interviewees view participation as a normative project that helps achieve "societally beneficial" AI systems, practitioners face numerous barriers to embedding participatory approaches in their companies: participation is expensive and resource intensive, it is "atomised" within companies, there is concern about exploitation, there is no incentive to be transparent about its adoption, and it is complicated by a lack of clear context. These barriers result in a piecemeal approach to participation that confers no decision-making power to participants and has little ongoing impact for AI labs. This papers contribution is to provide novel empirical research on the implementation of public participation in commercial AI labs, and shed light on the current challenges of using participatory approaches in this context.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society

Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm.

cs.CY↗