Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In


Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here


Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.


Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.


Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

You must login to add post.


Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here
Sign InSign Up

Qaskme

Qaskme Logo Qaskme Logo

Qaskme Navigation

  • Home
  • Questions Feed
  • Communities
  • Blog
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask A Question
  • Home
  • Questions Feed
  • Communities
  • Blog
Home/ai safety
  • Recent Questions
  • Most Answered
  • Answers
  • No Answers
  • Most Visited
  • Most Voted
  • Random
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 25/09/2025In: News, Technology

"Can AI be truly 'safe' at scale, and how do we audit that safety?"

safe at scale and do we audit that sa ...

ai safetyai-auditingai-governanceresponsible-aiscalable-aitrustworthy-ai
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 25/09/2025 at 4:19 pm

    What Is "Safe AI at Scale" Even? AI "safety" isn't one thing — it's a moving target made up of many overlapping concerns. In general, we can break it down to three layers: 1. Technical Safety Making sure the AI: Doesn't generate harmful or false content Doesn't hallucinate, spread misinformation, orRead more

    What Is “Safe AI at Scale” Even?

    AI “safety” isn’t one thing — it’s a moving target made up of many overlapping concerns. In general, we can break it down to three layers:

    1. Technical Safety

    Making sure the AI:

    • Doesn’t generate harmful or false content
    • Doesn’t hallucinate, spread misinformation, or toxicity
    • Respects data and privacy limits
    • Sticks to its intended purpose

    2. Social / Ethical Safety

    Making sure the AI:

    • Doesn’t reinforce bias, discrimination, or exclusion
    • Respects cultural norms and values
    • Can’t be easily hijacked for evil (e.g. scams, propaganda)
    • Respects human rights and dignity

    3. Systemic / Governance-Level Safety

    Guaranteeing:

    • AI systems are audited, accountable, and transparent
    • Companies or governments won’t use AI to manipulate or control
    • There are global standards for risk, fairness, and access
    • People aren’t left behind while jobs, economies, and cultures transform

    So when we ask, “Is it safe?”, we’re really asking:

    Can something so versatile, strong, and enigmatic be controllable, just, and predictable — even when it’s everywhere?

    Why Safety Is So Hard at Scale

    • At a tiny scale — i.e., an AI in your phone that helps you schedule meetings — we can test it, limit it, and correct problems quite easily.
    • But at scale — when millions or billions are wielding the AI in unpredictable ways, in various languages, in countries, with access to everything from education to nuclear weapons — all of this becomes more difficult.

    Here’s why:

    1. The AI is a black box

    Current-day AI models (specifically large language models) are distinct from traditional software. You can’t see precisely how they “make a decision.” Their internal workings are of high dimensionality and largely incomprehensible. Therefore, even well-intentioned programmers can’t predict as much as they’d like about what is happening when the model is pushed to its extremes.

    2. The world is unpredictable

    No one can conceivably foresee every use (abuse) of an AI model. Criminals are creative. So are children, activists, advertisers, and pranksters. As usage expands, so does the array of edge cases — and many of them are not innocuous.

    3. Cultural values aren’t universal

    What’s “safe” in one culture can be offensive or even dangerous in another. A politically censoring AI based in the U.S., for example, might be deemed biased elsewhere in the world, or one trying to be inclusive in the West might be at odds with prevailing norms elsewhere. There is no single definition of “aligned values” globally.

    4. Incentives aren’t always aligned

    Many companies are racing to produce better-performance models earlier. Pressure to cut corners, beat the safety clock, or hide faults from scrutiny leads to mistakes. When secrecy and competition are present, safety suffers.

     How Do We Audit AI for Safety?

    This is the meat of your question — not just “is it safe,” but “how can we be certain?

    These are the main techniques being used or under development to audit AI models for safety:

    1. Red Teaming

    • Think about the prospect of hiring hackers to break into your system — but instead, for AI.
    • “Red teams” try to get models to respond with something unsafe, biased, false, or otherwise objectionable.
    • The goal is to identify edge cases before launch, and adjust training or responses accordingly.

    Disadvantages:

    • It’s backward-looking — you only learn what you’re testing for.
    • It’s typically biased by who’s on the team (e.g. Western, English-speaking, tech-aware people).

    Can’t test everything.

    2. Automated Evaluations

    • Some labs test tens of thousands or millions of examples against a model with formal tests to find bad behavior.
    • These can look for hate speech, misinformation, jailbreaking, or bias.

    Limitations:

    • AI models evolve (or get updated) all the time — what’s “safe” today may not be tomorrow.
    • Automated tests can miss subtle types of bias, manipulation, or misalignment.

    3. Human Preference Feedback

    • Humans rank outputs as to whether they’re useful, factual, or harmful.
    • These rankings are used to fine-tune the model (e.g. in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, or RLHF).

    Constraints:

    • Human feedback is expensive, slow, and noisy.
    • Biases in who does the rating (i.e. political, cultural) could taint outcomes.
    • Humans typically don’t agree on what’s safe or ethical.

    4. Transparency Reports & Model Cards

    • Some of these AI creators publish “model cards” with details about the training data, testing, and safety testing of the model.
    • Similar to nutrition labels, they inform researchers and policymakers about what went into the model.

    Limitations:

    • Too frequently voluntary and incomplete.
    • Don’t necessarily capture the look of actual-world harms.

    5. Third-Party Audits

    • Independent researchers or regulatory agencies can audit models — preferably with weight, data, and testing access.
    • This is similar to how drug approvals or financial audits work.

    Limitations:

    • Few companies are happy to offer true access.
    • There isn’t a single standard yet on what “passes” an AI audit.

    6. “Constitutional” or Rule-Based AI

    • Some models use fixed rules (e.g., “don’t harm,” “be honest,” “respect privacy”) as a basis for output.
    • These “AI constitutions” are written with the intention of influencing behavior internally.

    Limitations:

    • Who writes the constitution?
    • Can there be inimical principles?
    • How do we ensure that they’re actually being followed?

    What Would “Safe AI at Scale” Actually Look Like?

    If we’re being a little optimistic — but also pragmatic — here’s what an actually safe, at-scale AI system might entail:

    •  Strong red teaming with different cultural, linguistic, and ethical
    • perspectives Regular independent audits with binding standards and consequences
    •  Override protections for users so people can report, mark, or block bad actors
    •  Open safety testing standards, such as car crash testing
    •  AI capability-adaptable governance organizations (e.g. international bodies, treaty-based systems)
    • Known failures, trade-offs, and deployment risks disclosed to the public
    •  Cultural localization so AI systems reflect local values, not Silicon Valley defaults
    • Monitoring and fail-safes in high-stakes domains (healthcare, law, elections, etc.)

    But. Will It Ever Be Fully Safe?

    No tech is ever 100% safe. Not cars, not pharmaceuticals, not the web. And neither is AI.

    But this is what’s different: AI isn’t a tool — it’s a general-purpose cognitive machine that works with humans, society, and knowledge at scale. That makes it exponentially more powerful — and exponentially more difficult to control.

    So no, we can’t make it “perfectly safe.

    But we can make it quantifiably safer, more transparent, and more accountable — if we tackle safety not as a one-time checkbox but as a continuous social contract among developers, users, governments, and communities.

     Final Thoughts (Human to Human)

    You’re not the only one if you feel uneasy about AI growing this fast. The scale, speed, and ambiguity of it all is head-spinning — especially because most of us never voted on its deployment.

    But asking, “Can it be safe?” is the first step to making it safer.
    Not perfect. Not harmless on all counts. But more regulated, more humane, and more responsive to true human needs.

    And that’s not a technical project. That is a human one.

    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 41
  • 0
Answer
daniyasiddiquiImage-Explained
Asked: 25/09/2025In: Technology

"Will open-source AI models catch up to proprietary ones like GPT-4/5 in capability and safety?

GPT-4/5 in capability and safety

ai capabilitiesai modelsai safetygpt-4gpt-5open source aiproprietary ai
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Image-Explained
    Added an answer on 25/09/2025 at 10:57 am

     Capability: How good are open-source models compared to GPT-4/5? They're already there — or nearly so — in many ways. Over the past two years, open-source models have progressed incredibly. Meta's LLaMA 3, Mistral's Mixtral, Cohere's Command R+, and Microsoft's Phi-3 are some models that have shownRead more

     Capability: How good are open-source models compared to GPT-4/5?

    They’re already there — or nearly so — in many ways.

    Over the past two years, open-source models have progressed incredibly. Meta’s LLaMA 3, Mistral’s Mixtral, Cohere’s Command R+, and Microsoft’s Phi-3 are some models that have shown that smaller or open-weight models can catch up or get very close to GPT-4 levels on several benchmarks, especially in some areas such as reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), or coding.

    Models are becoming:

    • Smaller and more efficient
    • Trained with better data curation
    • Tuned on open instruction datasets
    • Can be customized by organizations or companies for particular use cases

    The open world is rapidly closing the gap on research published (or spilled) by big labs. The gap that previously existed between open and closed models was 2–3 years; now it’s down to maybe 6–12 months, and in some tasks, it’s nearly even.

    However, when it comes to truly frontier models — like GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5, or Claude 3.5 — there’s still a noticeable lead in:

    • Multimodal integration (text, vision, audio, video)
    • Robustness under pressure
    • Scalability and latency at large scale
    • Zero-shot reasoning across diverse domains

    So yes, open-source is closing in — but there’s still an infrastructure and quality gap at the top. It’s not simply model weights, but tooling, infrastructure, evaluation, and guardrails.

    Safety: Are open models as safe as closed models?

    That is a much harder one.

    Open-source models are open — you know what you’re dealing with, you can audit the weights, you can know the training data (in theory). That’s a gigantic safety and trust benefit.

    But there’s a downside:

    • The moment you open-sourced a good model, anyone can use it — for good or ill.
    • With closed models, you can’t prevent misuse (e.g., making malware, disinformation, or violent content).
    • Fine-tuning or prompt injection can make even a very “safe” model act out.

    Private labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google build in:

    • Robust content filters
    • Alignment layers
    • Red-teaming protocols
    • Abuse detection

    And centralized control — which, for better or worse, allows them to enforce safety policies and ban bad actors

    This centralization can feel like “gatekeeping,” but it’s also what enables strong guardrails — which are harder to maintain in the open-source world without central infrastructure.

    That said, there are a few open-source projects at the forefront of community-driven safety tools, including:

    • Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF)
    • Constitutional AI
    • Model cards and audits
    • Open evaluation platforms (e.g., HELM, Arena, LMSYS)

    So while open-source safety is behind the curve, it’s increasing fast — and more cooperatively.

     The Bigger Picture: Why this question matters

    Fundamentally, this question is really about who gets to determine the future of AI.

    • If only a few dominant players gain access to state-of-the-art AI, there’s risk of concentrated power, opaque decision-making, and economic distortion.
    • But if it’s all open-source, there’s the risk of untrammeled abuse, mass-scale disinformation, or even destabilization.

    The most promising future likely exists in hybrid solutions:

    • Open-weight models with community safety layers
    • Closed models with open APIs
    • Policy frameworks that encourage responsibility, not regulation
    • Cooperation between labs, governments, and civil society

    TL;DR — Final Thoughts

    • Yes, open-source AI models are rapidly closing the capability gap — and will soon match, and then surpass, closed models in many areas.
    • But safety is more complicated. Closed systems still have more control mechanisms intact, although open-source is advancing rapidly in that area, too.
    • The biggest challenge is how to build a world where AI is possible, accessible, and secure — without putting that capability in the hands of a few.
    See less
      • 0
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
  • 0
  • 1
  • 50
  • 0
Answer

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 395
  • Answers 380
  • Posts 3
  • Best Answers 21
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Anonymous

    Bluestone IPO vs Kal

    • 5 Answers
  • Anonymous

    Which industries are

    • 3 Answers
  • daniyasiddiqui

    How can mindfulness

    • 2 Answers
  • daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui added an answer  The Core Concept As you code — say in Python, Java, or C++ — your computer can't directly read it.… 20/10/2025 at 4:09 pm
  • daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui added an answer  1. What Every Method Really Does Prompt Engineering It's the science of providing a foundation model (such as GPT-4, Claude,… 19/10/2025 at 4:38 pm
  • daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui added an answer  1. Approach Prompting as a Discussion Instead of a Direct Command Suppose you have a very intelligent but word-literal intern… 19/10/2025 at 3:25 pm

Top Members

Trending Tags

ai aiineducation ai in education analytics company digital health edtech education geopolitics global trade health language languagelearning mindfulness multimodalai news people tariffs technology trade policy

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help

© 2025 Qaskme. All Rights Reserved