Many areas of artificial intelligence, and machine learning in particular, aim at being probably correct, i.e., valid on average, rather than pursuing the idealistic goal of being provably valid for all inputs. However, AI systems could still be predictably valid, such as an imperfect robot deliverer for which we can reliably and precisely predict the task instances for which it is correct and safe, its valid operating range. “Predictable AI” is a nascent research area that explores ways of anticipating key validity indicators (e.g., performance, safety) of present and future AI ecosystems. We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI, and thus should be prioritised over performance. We formally characterise predictability, explore its most relevant components, illustrate what can be predicted, describe alternative candidates for predictors, as well as the trade-offs between maximising validity and predictability. To illustrate these concepts, we bring an array of illustrative examples covering diverse ecosystem configurations. “Predictable AI” is related to other areas of technical and non-technical AI research, but have distinctive questions, hypotheses, techniques and challenges. This paper aims to elucidate them, calls for identifying paths towards a landscape of predictably valid AI systems and outlines the potential impact of this emergent field.

Can a language model predict for which questions another language model will answer successfully? We investigate the extent to which performance prediction is possible and dissect various factors that influence it. Our experimental setting fine-tunes DeBERTa models, which we call assessors , on the evaluation results of generative language models with up to 128 billion parameters, which we refer to as subject systems . Our analysis spans more than 100 tasks from BIG-bench. We find that the assessors can match and even exceed the subjects’ confidence in both refinement and calibration, anticipating failures at near perfect levels for some tasks. We also find that for performance prediction it can be beneficial to learn from the scores on multiple tasks or to learn from the scores of multiple subjects, but both depend on the task at hand. Lastly, we find that large and small subject systems are equally predictable, showing promise for the scalability of the predictability problem.

Even with obvious deficiencies, large prompt-commanded multimodal models are proving to be flexible cognitive tools representing an unprecedented generality. But the directness, diversity, and degree of user interaction create a distinctive “human-centred generality” (HCG), rather than a fully autonomous one. HCG implies that —for a specific user— a system is only as general as it is effective for the user’s relevant tasks and their prevalent ways of prompting. A human-centred evaluation of general-purpose AI systems therefore needs to reflect the personal nature of interaction, tasks and cognition. We argue that the best way to understand these systems is as highly-coupled cognitive extenders, and to analyse the bidirectional cognitive adaptations between them and humans. In this paper, we give a formulation of HCG, as well as a high-level overview of the elements and trade-offs involved in the prompting process. We end the paper by outlining some essential research questions and suggestions for improving evaluation practices, which we envision as characteristic for the evaluation of general artificial intelligence in the future.

Even with obvious deficiencies, large prompt-commanded multimodal models are proving to be flexible cognitive tools representing an unprecedented generality. But the directness, diversity, and degree of user interaction create a distinctive “human-centred generality” (HCG), rather than a fully autonomous one. HCG implies that —for a specific user— a system is only as general as it is effective for the user’s relevant tasks and their prevalent ways of prompting. A human-centred evaluation of general-purpose AI systems therefore needs to reflect the personal nature of interaction, tasks and cognition. We argue that the best way to understand these systems is as highly-coupled cognitive extenders, and to analyse the bidirectional cognitive adaptations between them and humans. In this paper, we give a formulation of HCG, as well as a high-level overview of the elements and trade-offs involved in the prompting process. We end the paper by outlining some essential research questions and suggestions for improving evaluation practices, which we envision as characteristic for the evaluation of general artificial intelligence in the future. This paper appears in the AI & Society track.

Many present and future problems associated with artificial intelligence are not due to its limitations, but to our poor assessment of its behaviour. Our evaluation procedures produce aggregated performance metrics that lack detail and quantified uncertainty about the following question: how will an AI system, with a particular profile \pi, behave for a new problem, characterised by a particular situation \mu? Instead of just aggregating test results, we can use machine learning methods to fully capitalise on this evaluation information. In this paper, we introduce the concept of an assessor model, \hat{R}(r|\pi,\mu), a conditional probability estimator trained on test data. We discuss how these assessors can be built by using information of the full system-problem space and illustrate a broad range of applications that derive from varied inferences and aggregations from \hat{R}. Building good assessor models will change the predictive and explanatory power of AI evaluation and will lead to new research directions for building and using them. We propose accompanying every deployed AI system with its own assessor.