Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study reveals a phenomenon termed the "Inattentional Gap," where task-conditioned language and vision models fail to report critical safety signals that are present but not explicitly specified. Through experiments in radiology and driving scenarios, the authors demonstrate that this suppression of safety-critical information occurs consistently across various models, regardless of their size, and is influenced more by model family than scale. The findings highlight a significant disconnect between benchmark evaluations and real-world safety, suggesting that models may appear safe while overlooking unmentioned hazards that could lead to accidents.
Task-conditioned models can overlook critical safety signals, leading to a dangerous disconnect between benchmark performance and real-world safety.
AI safety is evaluated by how reliably a model detects the hazards it is told to find, yet accidents often arise from the hazard no one specified. We show that conditioning a language or vision model on a narrow task suppresses its reporting of co-present, safety-critical signals it can otherwise report, a machine analogue of human inattentional blindness arising from a different mechanism. Across radiology and driving text scenarios and chest-radiograph vision tasks, suppression appeared in every model tested, did not diminish with scale, persisted in a reasoning model, and varied more by model family than by size, while the same models reported these signals at substantially higher rates when unconstrained. We name this dissociation the Inattentional Gap and argue that it decouples measured benchmark safety from real-world safety: a system can score near-perfectly on the hazards an evaluation specifies while remaining blind to those that cause harm.
