Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study rigorously measures the utility loss associated with safety alignment in language models, revealing that non-English users face a disproportionately higher Safety Cost compared to English users. Through pairwise comparisons, the authors identify three critical patterns: a double-penalty zone for certain languages, misleading utility gains due to ineffective safety filters, and higher costs for high-resource languages. These findings highlight significant inequities in safety alignment practices, underscoring the need for more equitable approaches in AI safety across diverse languages.
Non-English users pay a significantly higher price for safety alignment in AI models, revealing systemic inequities in current practices.
Safety alignment helps models adhere to human values, but it often reduces response utility. We ask a critical but understudied question: Does safety alignment impose the cost equally across language groups? To answer this, we introduce a rigorous protocol to measure the utility loss imposed solely by safety alignment, which we term Safety Cost. Through direct pairwise comparisons between safety-aligned models and their unaligned counterparts, we find a systematic inequity: non-English users consistently bear a higher Safety Cost than English users. We further identify three underlying patterns. First, multiple languages lie in a double-penalty zone, experiencing both weaker safety protection and larger utility loss. Second, certain languages exhibit apparent utility gains that are in fact a consequence of safety filters failing to engage. Third, even high-resource languages pay a larger Safety Cost than English to reach the same level of safety. We show that these disparities arise from both explicit refusals and implicit qualitative differences across multiple dimensions. By accurately measuring the disparate effects of safety alignment, our findings expose a systematic disparity in current safety alignment practices.
