Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper identifies the need for empirical data to understand the extent and effects of AI R&D automation (AIRDA), arguing that current capability benchmarks are insufficient. It proposes a set of metrics spanning capital share of R&D spending, researcher time allocation, and AI subversion incidents to track AIRDA's impact on AI progress and oversight. The authors advocate for companies, non-profits, and governments to track these metrics to inform decision-making, implement safety measures, and monitor the pace of AI development.
Current AI benchmarks miss the crucial effects of AI R&D automation, so here are the metrics we should be tracking instead.
The automation of AI R&D (AIRDA) could have significant implications, but its extent and ultimate effects remain uncertain. We need empirical data to resolve these uncertainties, but existing data (primarily capability benchmarks) may not reflect real-world automation or capture its broader consequences, such as whether AIRDA accelerates capabilities more than safety progress or whether our ability to oversee AI R&D can keep pace with its acceleration. To address these gaps, this work proposes metrics to track the extent of AIRDA and its effects on AI progress and oversight. The metrics span dimensions such as capital share of AI R&D spending, researcher time allocation, and AI subversion incidents, and could help decision makers understand the potential consequences of AIRDA, implement appropriate safety measures, and maintain awareness of the pace of AI development. We recommend that companies and third parties (e.g. non-profit research organisations) start to track these metrics, and that governments support these efforts.
