MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393152329 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30542

Evaluating AI Red Teaming’s Readiness to Address Environmental Harms: A Thematic Analysis of LLM Discourse

2024· article· en· W4393152329 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Au

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisThematic mapPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyGeographyQualitative researchCartographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explores the discourse surrounding red teaming and aims to identify any themes in the online discussion of potential environmental harms stemming from Large Language Models (LLMs). Focusing on the AI Red Teaming event at DEFCON 31, this study employs reflexive thematic analysis on diverse social networking site sources to extract insights into public discussion of LLM red teaming and its environmental implications. The findings intend to inform future research, highlighting the need for responsible AI development that addresses environmental concerns.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicLaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207