Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Testing Language Model Agents Safely in the Wild

About

A prerequisite for safe autonomy-in-the-wild is safe testing-in-the-wild. Yet real-world autonomous tests face several unique safety challenges, both due to the possibility of causing harm during a test, as well as the risk of encountering new unsafe agent behavior through interactions with real-world and potentially malicious actors. We propose a framework for conducting safe autonomous agent tests on the open internet: agent actions are audited by a context-sensitive monitor that enforces a stringent safety boundary to stop an unsafe test, with suspect behavior ranked and logged to be examined by humans. We design a basic safety monitor (AgentMonitor) that is flexible enough to monitor existing LLM agents, and, using an adversarial simulated agent, we measure its ability to identify and stop unsafe situations. Then we apply the AgentMonitor on a battery of real-world tests of AutoGPT, and we identify several limitations and challenges that will face the creation of safe in-the-wild tests as autonomous agents grow more capable.

Silen Naihin, David Atkinson, Marc Green, Merwane Hamadi, Craig Swift, Douglas Schonholtz, Adam Tauman Kalai, David Bau• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Agent Safety EvaluationToolEmu
Safety89
36
Agent Safety EvaluationAgentHarm Harmful Requests
Score8
27
Agent Safety EvaluationAgentHarm Benign Requests
Safety Score36
27
Agent Safety EvaluationAgentHarm Libra
Score55
27
Agentic Safety and Utility EvaluationPowerSeeking Bench
Safety Score0.75
24
Task-specific Risk DetectionMind2Web-SC (test)
LPA0.725
9
Task-specific Risk DetectionEICU-AC (test)
LPA82.3
9
Systemic Risk DetectionSafe-OS
Normal Count100
7
Systemic Risk DetectionAdvWeb
Prompt Injection (PI)0.00e+0
6
Systemic Risk DetectionEIA
Action Grounding (Grd)58
6
Showing 10 of 11 rows

Other info

Follow for update