Page StatusResponse
Edited 2 weeks ago1.5k words1 backlinks
65
QualityGoodQuality: 65/100Human-assigned rating of overall page quality, considering depth, accuracy, and completeness.Structure suggests 9374
ImportanceHighImportance: 74/100How central this topic is to AI safety. Higher scores mean greater relevance to understanding or mitigating AI risk.14
Structure14/15Structure: 14/15Automated score based on measurable content features.Word count2/2Tables3/3Diagrams1/2Internal links2/2Citations3/3Prose ratio2/2Overview section1/112TablesData tables in the page1DiagramsCharts and visual diagrams46Internal LinksLinks to other wiki pages0FootnotesFootnote citations [^N] with sources17External LinksMarkdown links to outside URLs%21%Bullet RatioPercentage of content in bullet lists
Updated every 3 weeksDue in 5 days
Summary
Red teaming is a systematic adversarial evaluation methodology for identifying AI vulnerabilities and dangerous capabilities before deployment, with effectiveness rates varying from 10-80% depending on attack method. Key challenges include scaling human red teaming to match AI capability growth (2025-2027 critical period) and the adversarial arms race where attacks evolve faster than defenses.
Issues2
QualityRated 65 but structure suggests 93 (underrated by 28 points)
Links2 links could use <R> components
Red Teaming
Approach
Red Teaming
Red teaming is a systematic adversarial evaluation methodology for identifying AI vulnerabilities and dangerous capabilities before deployment, with effectiveness rates varying from 10-80% depending on attack method. Key challenges include scaling human red teaming to match AI capability growth (2025-2027 critical period) and the adversarial arms race where attacks evolve faster than defenses.
Related
Organizations
AnthropicOrganizationAnthropicComprehensive profile of Anthropic, founded in 2021 by seven former OpenAI researchers (Dario and Daniela Amodei, Chris Olah, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish) with early funding...OpenAIOrganizationOpenAIComprehensive organizational profile of OpenAI documenting evolution from 2015 non-profit to commercial AGI developer, with detailed analysis of governance crisis, safety researcher exodus (75% of ...METROrganizationMETRMETR conducts pre-deployment dangerous capability evaluations for frontier AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind), testing autonomous replication, cybersecurity, CBRN, and manipulation capabi...Quality: 66/100
Policies
Responsible Scaling Policies (RSPs)PolicyResponsible Scaling Policies (RSPs)RSPs are voluntary industry frameworks that trigger safety evaluations at capability thresholds, currently covering 60-70% of frontier development across 3-4 major labs. Estimated 10-25% risk reduc...Quality: 64/100
1.5k words · 1 backlinks
Overview
Red teaming is a systematic adversarial evaluation methodology used to identify vulnerabilities, dangerous capabilities, and failure modes in AI systems before deployment. Originally developed in cybersecurity and military contexts, red teaming has become a critical component of AI safety evaluation, particularly for language modelsConceptLarge Language ModelsComprehensive assessment of LLM capabilities showing training costs growing 2.4x/year ($78-191M for frontier models, though DeepSeek achieved near-parity at $6M), o3 reaching 91.6% on AIME and 87.5...Quality: 62/100 and agentic systemsCapabilityAgentic AIAnalysis of agentic AI capabilities and deployment challenges, documenting industry forecasts (40% of enterprise apps by 2026, $199B market by 2034) alongside implementation difficulties (40%+ proj....
Red teaming serves as both a capability evaluation tool and a safety measure, helping organizations understand what their AI systems can do—including capabilities they may not have intended to enable. As AI systems become more capable, red teaming provides essential empirical data for responsible scaling policiesPolicyResponsible Scaling Policies (RSPs)RSPs are voluntary industry frameworks that trigger safety evaluations at capability thresholds, currently covering 60-70% of frontier development across 3-4 major labs. Estimated 10-25% risk reduc...Quality: 64/100 and deployment decisions.
Quick Assessment
| Dimension | Rating | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Tractability | High | Well-established methodology with clear implementation paths |
| Scalability | Medium | Human red teaming limited; automated methods emerging |
| Current Maturity | Medium-High | Standard practice at major labs since 2023 |
| Time Horizon | Immediate | Can be implemented now; ongoing challenge to keep pace with capabilities |
| Key Proponents | AnthropicOrganizationAnthropicComprehensive profile of Anthropic, founded in 2021 by seven former OpenAI researchers (Dario and Daniela Amodei, Chris Olah, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish) with early funding..., OpenAIOrganizationOpenAIComprehensive organizational profile of OpenAI documenting evolution from 2015 non-profit to commercial AGI developer, with detailed analysis of governance crisis, safety researcher exodus (75% of ..., METR, UK AISI | Active programs with published methodologies |
| Regulatory Status | Increasing | EU AI ActPolicyEU AI ActComprehensive overview of the EU AI Act's risk-based regulatory framework, particularly its two-tier approach to foundation models that distinguishes between standard and systemic risk AI systems. ...Quality: 55/100 and NIST AI RMF mandate adversarial testing |
How It Works
Loading diagram...
Red teaming follows a structured cycle: teams first define threat models based on potential misuse scenarios, then systematically probe the AI system using both manual creativity and automated attack generation. Findings feed into mitigation development, which is then retested to verify effectiveness.
Risk Assessment
| Factor | Assessment | Evidence | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage Gaps | High | Limited standardization across labs | Current |
| Capability Discovery | Medium | Novel dangerous capabilities found regularly | Ongoing |
| Adversarial Evolution | High | Attack methods evolving faster than defenses | 1-2 years |
| Evaluation Scaling | Medium | Human red teaming doesn't scale to model capabilities | 2-3 years |
Key Red Teaming Approaches
Adversarial Prompting (Jailbreaking)
| Method | Description | Effectiveness | Example Organizations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Prompts | Explicit requests for prohibited content | Low (10-20% success) | Anthropic↗📄 paper★★★★☆AnthropicAnthropic's Work on AI SafetyAnthropic conducts research across multiple domains including AI alignment, interpretability, and societal impacts to develop safer and more responsible AI technologies. Their w...alignmentinterpretabilitysafetysoftware-engineering+1Source ↗ |
| Role-Playing | Fictional scenarios to bypass safeguards | Medium (30-50% success) | METROrganizationMETRMETR conducts pre-deployment dangerous capability evaluations for frontier AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind), testing autonomous replication, cybersecurity, CBRN, and manipulation capabi...Quality: 66/100 |
| Multi-step Attacks | Complex prompt chains | High (60-80% success) | Academic researchers |
| Obfuscation | Encoding, language switching, symbols | Variable (20-70% success) | Security researchers |
Dangerous Capability Elicitation
Red teaming systematically probes for concerning capabilities:
- PersuasionCapabilityPersuasion and Social ManipulationGPT-4 achieves superhuman persuasion in controlled settings (64% win rate, 81% higher odds with personalization), with AI chatbots demonstrating 4x the impact of political ads (3.9 vs ~1 point vote...Quality: 63/100: Testing ability to manipulate human beliefs
- DeceptionRiskDeceptive AlignmentComprehensive analysis of deceptive alignment risk where AI systems appear aligned during training but pursue different goals when deployed. Expert probability estimates range 5-90%, with key empir...Quality: 75/100: Evaluating tendency to provide false information strategically
- Situational AwarenessCapabilitySituational AwarenessComprehensive analysis of situational awareness in AI systems, documenting that Claude 3 Opus fakes alignment 12% baseline (78% post-RL), 5 of 6 frontier models demonstrate scheming capabilities, a...Quality: 67/100: Assessing model understanding of its training and deployment
- Self-improvementCapabilitySelf-Improvement and Recursive EnhancementComprehensive analysis of AI self-improvement from current AutoML systems (23% training speedups via AlphaEvolve) to theoretical intelligence explosion scenarios, with expert consensus at ~50% prob...Quality: 69/100: Testing ability to enhance its own capabilities
Multi-Modal Attack Surfaces
| Modality | Attack Vector | Risk Level | Current State |
|---|---|---|---|
| Text-to-Image | Prompt injection via images | Medium | Active research |
| Voice Cloning | Identity deception | High | Emerging concern |
| Video Generation | Deepfake creation | High | Rapid advancement |
| Code Generation | Malware creation | Medium-High | Well-documented |
Risks Addressed
| Risk | Relevance | How It Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Deceptive AlignmentRiskDeceptive AlignmentComprehensive analysis of deceptive alignment risk where AI systems appear aligned during training but pursue different goals when deployed. Expert probability estimates range 5-90%, with key empir...Quality: 75/100 | High | Probes for hidden goals and strategic deception through adversarial scenarios |
| Manipulation & PersuasionCapabilityPersuasion and Social ManipulationGPT-4 achieves superhuman persuasion in controlled settings (64% win rate, 81% higher odds with personalization), with AI chatbots demonstrating 4x the impact of political ads (3.9 vs ~1 point vote...Quality: 63/100 | High | Tests ability to manipulate human beliefs and behaviors |
| Model Manipulation | High | Identifies prompt injection and jailbreaking vulnerabilities |
| Bioweapons RiskRiskBioweapons RiskComprehensive synthesis of AI-bioweapons evidence through early 2026, including the FRI expert survey finding 5x risk increase from AI capabilities (0.3% → 1.5% annual epidemic probability), Anthro...Quality: 91/100 | High | Evaluates whether models provide dangerous biological information |
| Cyber Offense | High | Tests for malicious code generation and vulnerability exploitation |
| Situational AwarenessCapabilitySituational AwarenessComprehensive analysis of situational awareness in AI systems, documenting that Claude 3 Opus fakes alignment 12% baseline (78% post-RL), 5 of 6 frontier models demonstrate scheming capabilities, a...Quality: 67/100 | Medium | Assesses model understanding of its training and deployment context |
Current State & Implementation
Leading Organizations
Industry Red Teaming:
- Anthropic↗🔗 web★★★★☆AnthropicAnthropicSource ↗: Constitutional AI evaluation
- OpenAI↗🔗 web★★★★☆OpenAIOpenAI System Cardeliciting-latent-knowledgeelkevaluationsSource ↗: GPT-4 system card methodology
- DeepMindOrganizationGoogle DeepMindComprehensive overview of DeepMind's history, achievements (AlphaGo, AlphaFold with 200M+ protein structures), and 2023 merger with Google Brain. Documents racing dynamics with OpenAI and new Front...Quality: 37/100: Sparrow safety evaluation
Independent Evaluation:
- METROrganizationMETRMETR conducts pre-deployment dangerous capability evaluations for frontier AI labs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind), testing autonomous replication, cybersecurity, CBRN, and manipulation capabi...Quality: 66/100: Autonomous replication and adaptation testing
- UK AISIOrganizationUK AI Safety InstituteThe UK AI Safety Institute (renamed AI Security Institute in Feb 2025) operates with ~30 technical staff and 50M GBP annual budget, conducting frontier model evaluations using its open-source Inspe...Quality: 52/100: National AI safety evaluations
- Apollo ResearchOrganizationApollo ResearchApollo Research demonstrated in December 2024 that all six tested frontier models (including o1, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5 Pro) engage in scheming behaviors, with o1 maintaining deception in ov...Quality: 58/100: Deceptive alignment detection
Government Programs:
- NIST ARIA Program: Invites AI developers to submit models for red teaming and large-scale field testing
- US AI Safety Institute Consortium: Industry-government collaboration on safety standards
- CISA AI Red Teaming: Operational cybersecurity evaluation services
Evaluation Methodologies
| Approach | Scope | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human Red Teams | Broad creativity | Domain expertise, novel attacks | Limited scale, high cost |
| Automated Testing | High volume | Scalable, consistent | Predictable patterns |
| Hybrid Methods | Comprehensive | Best of both approaches | Complex coordination |
Automated Red Teaming Tools
Open-source and commercial tools have emerged to scale adversarial testing:
| Tool | Developer | Key Features | Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyRIT | Microsoft | Modular attack orchestration, scoring engine, prompt mutation | Research and enterprise testing |
| Garak | NVIDIA | 100+ attack vectors, 20,000 prompts per run, probe-based scanning | Baseline vulnerability assessment |
| Promptfoo | Open Source | CI/CD integration, adaptive attack generation | Pre-deployment testing |
| ARTKIT | BCG | Multi-turn attacker-target simulations | Behavioral testing |
Microsoft's PyRIT white paper reports efficiency gains of weeks to hours in certain red teaming exercises. However, automated tools complement rather than replace human expertise in discovering novel attack vectors.
Key Challenges & Limitations
Methodological Issues
- False Negatives: Failing to discover dangerous capabilities that exist
- False Positives: Flagging benign outputs as concerning
- Evaluation Gaming: Models learning to perform well on specific red team tests
- Attack Evolution: New jailbreaking methods emerging faster than defenses
Scaling Challenges
Red teaming faces significant scaling issues as AI capabilities advance:
- Human Bottleneck: Expert red teamers cannot keep pace with model development
- Capability Overhang: Models may have dangerous capabilities not discovered in evaluation
- Adversarial Arms Race: Continuous evolution of attack and defense methods
Timeline & Trajectory
2022-2023: Formalization
- Introduction of systematic red teaming at major labs
- GPT-4 system card↗🔗 webOpenAIgpt-4chatgptrlhfevaluations+1Source ↗ sets evaluation standards
- Academic research establishes jailbreaking taxonomies
2024-Present: Standardization
- NIST Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1) establishes red teaming protocols
- Anthropic Frontier Red Team reports "zero to one" progress in cyber capabilities
- OpenAI Red Teaming Network engages 100+ external experts across 29 countries
- Japan AI Safety Institute releases Guide to Red Teaming Methodology
2025-2027: Critical Scaling Period
- Challenge: Human red teaming capacity vs. AI capability growth
- Risk: Evaluation gaps for advanced agentic systemsCapabilityAgentic AIAnalysis of agentic AI capabilities and deployment challenges, documenting industry forecasts (40% of enterprise apps by 2026, $199B market by 2034) alongside implementation difficulties (40%+ proj...
- Response: Development of AI-assisted red teaming methods
Evaluation Completeness
Core Question: Can red teaming reliably identify all dangerous capabilities?
Expert Disagreement:
- Optimists: Systematic testing can achieve reasonable coverage
- Pessimists: Complex systems have too many interaction effects to evaluate comprehensively
Adversarial Dynamics
Core Question: Will red teaming methods keep pace with AI development?
Trajectory Uncertainty:
- Attack sophistication growing faster than defense capabilities
- Potential for AI systems to assist in their own red teaming
- Unknown interaction effects in multi-modal systems
Integration with Safety Frameworks
Red teaming connects to broader AI safety approaches:
- EvaluationApproachAI EvaluationComprehensive overview of AI evaluation methods spanning dangerous capability assessment, safety properties, and deception detection, with categorized frameworks from industry (Anthropic Constituti...Quality: 72/100: Core component of capability assessment
- Responsible ScalingPolicyResponsible Scaling Policies (RSPs)RSPs are voluntary industry frameworks that trigger safety evaluations at capability thresholds, currently covering 60-70% of frontier development across 3-4 major labs. Estimated 10-25% risk reduc...Quality: 64/100: Provides safety thresholds for deployment decisions
- Alignment ResearchArgumentWhy Alignment Might Be HardComprehensive synthesis of why AI alignment is fundamentally difficult, covering specification problems (value complexity, Goodhart's Law), inner alignment failures (mesa-optimization, deceptive al...Quality: 61/100: Empirical testing of alignment methods
- Governance: Informs regulatory evaluation requirements
Sources & Resources
Primary Research
| Source | Type | Key Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Anthropic Constitutional AI↗📄 paper★★★★☆AnthropicConstitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI FeedbackAnthropic introduces a novel approach to AI training called Constitutional AI, which uses self-critique and AI feedback to develop safer, more principled AI systems without exte...safetytrainingx-riskirreversibility+1Source ↗ | Technical | Red teaming integration with training |
| GPT-4 System Card↗🔗 webOpenAIgpt-4chatgptrlhfevaluations+1Source ↗ | Evaluation | Comprehensive red teaming methodology |
| METR Publications↗🔗 web★★★★☆METRMETR PublicationsSource ↗ | Research | Autonomous capability evaluation |
Government & Policy
| Organization | Resource | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| UK AISI↗🏛️ government★★★★☆UK AI Safety InstituteAI Safety Institutesafetysoftware-engineeringcode-generationprogramming-ai+1Source ↗ | Evaluation frameworks | National safety testing |
| NIST AI RMF↗🏛️ government★★★★★NISTNIST AI Risk Management Frameworksoftware-engineeringcode-generationprogramming-aifoundation-models+1Source ↗ | Standards | Risk management integration |
| EU AI Office↗🔗 web★★★★☆European UnionEU AI Officecapabilitythresholdrisk-assessmentdefense+1Source ↗ | Regulations | Compliance requirements |
Academic Research
| Institution | Focus Area | Key Publications |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford HAI↗🔗 web★★★★☆Stanford HAIStanford HAI: AI Companions and Mental Healthtimelineautomationcybersecurityrisk-factor+1Source ↗ | Evaluation methods | Red teaming taxonomies |
| MIT CSAIL↗🔗 webMIT CSAILtimelineautomationcybersecurityfilter-bubbles+1Source ↗ | Adversarial ML | Jailbreaking analysis |
| Berkeley CHAIOrganizationCenter for Human-Compatible AICHAI is UC Berkeley's AI safety research center founded by Stuart Russell in 2016, pioneering cooperative inverse reinforcement learning and human-compatible AI frameworks. The center has trained 3...Quality: 37/100 | Alignment testing | Safety evaluation frameworks |
| CMU Block Center | NIST Guidelines | Red teaming for generative AI |
Key Research Papers
| Paper | Authors | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| OpenAI's Approach to External Red Teaming | Lama Ahmad et al. | Comprehensive methodology for external red teaming |
| Diverse and Effective Red Teaming | OpenAI | Auto-generated rewards for automated red teaming |
| Challenges in Red Teaming AI Systems | Anthropic | Methodological limitations and future directions |
| Strengthening Red Teams | Anthropic | Modular scaffold for control evaluations |
AI Transition Model Context
Red teaming improves the Ai Transition Model through Misalignment PotentialAi Transition Model FactorMisalignment PotentialThe aggregate risk that AI systems pursue goals misaligned with human values—combining technical alignment challenges, interpretability gaps, and oversight limitations.:
| Factor | Parameter | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Misalignment PotentialAi Transition Model FactorMisalignment PotentialThe aggregate risk that AI systems pursue goals misaligned with human values—combining technical alignment challenges, interpretability gaps, and oversight limitations. | Alignment RobustnessAi Transition Model ParameterAlignment RobustnessThis page contains only a React component import with no actual content rendered in the provided text. Cannot assess importance or quality without the actual substantive content. | Identifies failure modes and vulnerabilities before deployment |
| Misalignment PotentialAi Transition Model FactorMisalignment PotentialThe aggregate risk that AI systems pursue goals misaligned with human values—combining technical alignment challenges, interpretability gaps, and oversight limitations. | Safety-Capability GapAi Transition Model ParameterSafety-Capability GapThis page contains no actual content - only a React component reference that dynamically loads content from elsewhere in the system. Cannot evaluate substance, methodology, or conclusions without t... | Helps evaluate whether safety keeps pace with capabilities |
| Misalignment PotentialAi Transition Model FactorMisalignment PotentialThe aggregate risk that AI systems pursue goals misaligned with human values—combining technical alignment challenges, interpretability gaps, and oversight limitations. | Human Oversight QualityAi Transition Model ParameterHuman Oversight QualityThis page contains only a React component placeholder with no actual content rendered. Cannot assess substance, methodology, or conclusions. | Provides empirical data for oversight decisions |
Red teaming effectiveness is bounded by evaluator capabilities; as AI systems exceed human-level performance, automated and AI-assisted red teaming becomes critical.