[Coping with shortage of plasma and albumin: a strategy for artificial liver].

Jian-rong Huang,Wen-xia Yuan

2009-05-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Risk assessment at AGI companies: A review of popular risk assessment techniques from other safety-critical industries

Leonie Koessler,Jonas Schuett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.08823

2023-07-18

Abstract:Companies like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic have the stated goal of building artificial general intelligence (AGI) - AI systems that perform as well as or better than humans on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. However, there are increasing concerns that AGI would pose catastrophic risks. In light of this, AGI companies need to drastically improve their risk management practices. To support such efforts, this paper reviews popular risk assessment techniques from other safety-critical industries and suggests ways in which AGI companies could use them to assess catastrophic risks from AI. The paper discusses three risk identification techniques (scenario analysis, fishbone method, and risk typologies and taxonomies), five risk analysis techniques (causal mapping, Delphi technique, cross-impact analysis, bow tie analysis, and system-theoretic process analysis), and two risk evaluation techniques (checklists and risk matrices). For each of them, the paper explains how they work, suggests ways in which AGI companies could use them, discusses their benefits and limitations, and makes recommendations. Finally, the paper discusses when to conduct risk assessments, when to use which technique, and how to use any of them. The reviewed techniques will be obvious to risk management professionals in other industries. And they will not be sufficient to assess catastrophic risks from AI. However, AGI companies should not skip the straightforward step of reviewing best practices from other industries.

Computers and Society
Examining the Differential Risk from High-level Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Control

Kyle A. Kilian,Christopher J. Ventura,Mark M. Bailey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103182

2023-11-24

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of the most transformative technologies of the 21st century. The extent and scope of future AI capabilities remain a key uncertainty, with widespread disagreement on timelines and potential impacts. As nations and technology companies race toward greater complexity and autonomy in AI systems, there are concerns over the extent of integration and oversight of opaque AI decision processes. This is especially true in the subfield of machine learning (ML), where systems learn to optimize objectives without human assistance. Objectives can be imperfectly specified or executed in an unexpected or potentially harmful way. This becomes more concerning as systems increase in power and autonomy, where an abrupt capability jump could result in unexpected shifts in power dynamics or even catastrophic failures. This study presents a hierarchical complex systems framework to model AI risk and provide a template for alternative futures analysis. Survey data were collected from domain experts in the public and private sectors to classify AI impact and likelihood. The results show increased uncertainty over the powerful AI agent scenario, confidence in multiagent environments, and increased concern over AI alignment failures and influence-seeking behavior.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society,Human-Computer Interaction
Technical Countermeasures for Security Risks of Artificial General Intelligence

Liu Yuqing,Zhang Yuhuai,Duan Peiqi,Shi Boxin,Yu Zhaofei,Huang Tiejun,Gao Wen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15302/j-sscae-2021.03.005

2021-01-01

Abstract:Human beings might face significant security risks after entering into the artificial general intelligence (AGI) era. By summarizing the difference between AGI and traditional artificial intelligence, we analyze the sources of the security risks of AGI from the aspects of model uninterpretability, unreliability of algorithms and hardware, and uncontrollability over autonomous consciousness. Moreover, we propose a security risk assessment system for AGI from the aspects of ability, motivation, and behavior. Subsequently, we discuss the defense countermeasures in the research and application stages. In the research stage, theoretical verification should be improved to develop interpretable models, the basic values of AGI should be rigorously constrained, and echnologies should be standardized. In the application stage, man-made risks should be prevented, motivations should be selected for AGI, and human values should be given to AGI. Furthermore, it is necessary to strengthen international cooperation and the education of AGI professionals, to well prepare for the unknown coming era of AGI.
An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks

Dan Hendrycks,Mantas Mazeika,Thomas Woodside

2023-10-10

Abstract:Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have sparked growing concerns among experts, policymakers, and world leaders regarding the potential for increasingly advanced AI systems to pose catastrophic risks. Although numerous risks have been detailed separately, there is a pressing need for a systematic discussion and illustration of the potential dangers to better inform efforts to mitigate them. This paper provides an overview of the main sources of catastrophic AI risks, which we organize into four categories: malicious use, in which individuals or groups intentionally use AIs to cause harm; AI race, in which competitive environments compel actors to deploy unsafe AIs or cede control to AIs; organizational risks, highlighting how human factors and complex systems can increase the chances of catastrophic accidents; and rogue AIs, describing the inherent difficulty in controlling agents far more intelligent than humans. For each category of risk, we describe specific hazards, present illustrative stories, envision ideal scenarios, and propose practical suggestions for mitigating these dangers. Our goal is to foster a comprehensive understanding of these risks and inspire collective and proactive efforts to ensure that AIs are developed and deployed in a safe manner. Ultimately, we hope this will allow us to realize the benefits of this powerful technology while minimizing the potential for catastrophic outcomes.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning
Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress

Yoshua Bengio,Geoffrey Hinton,Andrew Yao,Dawn Song,Pieter Abbeel,Trevor Darrell,Yuval Noah Harari,Ya-Qin Zhang,Lan Xue,Shai Shalev-Shwartz,Gillian Hadfield,Jeff Clune,Tegan Maharaj,Frank Hutter,Atılım Güneş Baydin,Sheila McIlraith,Qiqi Gao,Ashwin Acharya,David Krueger,Anca Dragan,Philip Torr,Stuart Russell,Daniel Kahneman,Jan Brauner,Sören Mindermann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn0117

2024-05-23

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI's impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and an irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. Although researchers have warned of extreme risks from AI, there is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Society's response, despite promising first steps, is incommensurate with the possibility of rapid, transformative progress that is expected by many experts. AI safety research is lagging. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems. In this short consensus paper, we describe extreme risks from upcoming, advanced AI systems. Drawing on lessons learned from other safety-critical technologies, we then outline a comprehensive plan combining technical research and development with proactive, adaptive governance mechanisms for a more commensurate preparation.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language,Machine Learning
How Do AI Timelines Affect Existential Risk?

Stephen McAleese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.05459

2022-08-30

Computers and Society

Abstract:Superhuman artificial general intelligence could be created this century and would likely be a significant source of existential risk. Delaying the creation of superintelligent AI (ASI) could decrease total existential risk by increasing the amount of time humanity has to work on the AI alignment problem. However, since ASI could reduce most risks, delaying the creation of ASI could also increase other existential risks, especially from advanced future technologies such as synthetic biology and molecular nanotechnology. If AI existential risk is high relative to the sum of other existential risk, delaying the creation of ASI will tend to decrease total existential risk and vice-versa. Other factors such as war and a hardware overhang could increase AI risk and cognitive enhancement could decrease AI risk. To reduce total existential risk, humanity should take robustly positive actions such as working on existential risk analysis, AI governance and safety, and reducing all sources of existential risk by promoting differential technological development.
AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES)

Andrew Critch,David Krueger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.04948

2020-05-30

Abstract:Framed in positive terms, this report examines how technical AI research might be steered in a manner that is more attentive to humanity's long-term prospects for survival as a species. In negative terms, we ask what existential risks humanity might face from AI development in the next century, and by what principles contemporary technical research might be directed to address those risks. A key property of hypothetical AI technologies is introduced, called \emph{prepotence}, which is useful for delineating a variety of potential existential risks from artificial intelligence, even as AI paradigms might shift. A set of \auxref{dirtot} contemporary research \directions are then examined for their potential benefit to existential safety. Each research direction is explained with a scenario-driven motivation, and examples of existing work from which to build. The research directions present their own risks and benefits to society that could occur at various scales of impact, and in particular are not guaranteed to benefit existential safety if major developments in them are deployed without adequate forethought and oversight. As such, each direction is accompanied by a consideration of potentially negative side effects.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning
AI Consciousness and Public Perceptions: Four Futures

Ines Fernandez,Nicoleta Kyosovska,Jay Luong,Gabriel Mukobi

2024-08-09

Abstract:The discourse on risks from advanced AI systems ("AIs") typically focuses on misuse, accidents and loss of control, but the question of AIs' moral status could have negative impacts which are of comparable significance and could be realised within similar timeframes. Our paper evaluates these impacts by investigating (1) the factual question of whether future advanced AI systems will be conscious, together with (2) the epistemic question of whether future human society will broadly believe advanced AI systems to be conscious. Assuming binary responses to (1) and (2) gives rise to four possibilities: in the true positive scenario, society predominantly correctly believes that AIs are conscious; in the false positive scenario, that belief is incorrect; in the true negative scenario, society correctly believes that AIs are not conscious; and lastly, in the false negative scenario, society incorrectly believes that AIs are not conscious. The paper offers vivid vignettes of the different futures to ground the two-dimensional framework. Critically, we identify four major risks: AI suffering, human disempowerment, geopolitical instability, and human depravity. We evaluate each risk across the different scenarios and provide an overall qualitative risk assessment for each scenario. Our analysis suggests that the worst possibility is the wrong belief that AI is non-conscious, followed by the wrong belief that AI is conscious. The paper concludes with the main recommendations to avoid research aimed at intentionally creating conscious AI and instead focus efforts on reducing our current uncertainties on both the factual and epistemic questions on AI consciousness.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?

Joseph Carlsmith

2024-08-13

Abstract:This report examines what I see as the core argument for concern about existential risk from misaligned artificial intelligence. I proceed in two stages. First, I lay out a backdrop picture that informs such concern. On this picture, intelligent agency is an extremely powerful force, and creating agents much more intelligent than us is playing with fire -- especially given that if their objectives are problematic, such agents would plausibly have instrumental incentives to seek power over humans. Second, I formulate and evaluate a more specific six-premise argument that creating agents of this kind will lead to existential catastrophe by 2070. On this argument, by 2070: (1) it will become possible and financially feasible to build relevantly powerful and agentic AI systems; (2) there will be strong incentives to do so; (3) it will be much harder to build aligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems than to build misaligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems that are still superficially attractive to deploy; (4) some such misaligned systems will seek power over humans in high-impact ways; (5) this problem will scale to the full disempowerment of humanity; and (6) such disempowerment will constitute an existential catastrophe. I assign rough subjective credences to the premises in this argument, and I end up with an overall estimate of ~5% that an existential catastrophe of this kind will occur by 2070. (May 2022 update: since making this report public in April 2021, my estimate here has gone up, and is now at >10%.)

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning
AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research

Riley Simmons-Edler,Ryan Badman,Shayne Longpre,Kanaka Rajan

2024-06-01

Abstract:The recent embrace of machine learning (ML) in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. This topic has received comparatively little attention of late compared to risks stemming from superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but requires fewer assumptions about the course of technological development and is thus a nearer-future issue. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. In the case of peer adversaries, this increases the likelihood of "low intensity" conflicts which risk escalation to broader warfare. In the case of non-peer adversaries, it reduces the domestic blowback to wars of aggression. This effect can occur regardless of other ethical issues around the use of military AI such as the risk of civilian casualties, and does not require any superhuman AI capabilities. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research. Our goal in this paper is to raise awareness among the public and ML researchers on the near-future risks posed by full or near-full autonomy in military technology, and we provide regulatory suggestions to mitigate these risks. We call upon AI policy experts and the defense AI community in particular to embrace transparency and caution in their development and deployment of AWS to avoid the negative effects on global stability and AI research that we highlight here.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning,Robotics
An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI

Ross Gruetzemacher,Alan Chan,Kevin Frazier,Christy Manning,Štěpán Los,James Fox,José Hernández-Orallo,John Burden,Matija Franklin,Clíodhna Ní Ghuidhir,Mark Bailey,Daniel Eth,Toby Pilditch,Kyle Kilian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.14455

2023-11-07

Abstract:Given rapid progress toward advanced AI and risks from frontier AI systems (advanced AI systems pushing the boundaries of the AI capabilities frontier), the creation and implementation of AI governance and regulatory schemes deserves prioritization and substantial investment. However, the status quo is untenable and, frankly, dangerous. A regulatory gap has permitted AI labs to conduct research, development, and deployment activities with minimal oversight. In response, frontier AI system evaluations have been proposed as a way of assessing risks from the development and deployment of frontier AI systems. Yet, the budding AI risk evaluation ecosystem faces significant coordination challenges, such as a limited diversity of evaluators, suboptimal allocation of effort, and perverse incentives. This paper proposes a solution in the form of an international consortium for AI risk evaluations, comprising both AI developers and third-party AI risk evaluators. Such a consortium could play a critical role in international efforts to mitigate societal-scale risks from advanced AI, including in managing responsible scaling policies and coordinated evaluation-based risk response. In this paper, we discuss the current evaluation ecosystem and its shortcomings, propose an international consortium for advanced AI risk evaluations, discuss issues regarding its implementation, discuss lessons that can be learnt from previous international institutions and existing proposals for international AI governance institutions, and, finally, we recommend concrete steps to advance the establishment of the proposed consortium: (i) solicit feedback from stakeholders, (ii) conduct additional research, (iii) conduct a workshop(s) for stakeholders, (iv) analyze feedback and create final proposal, (v) solicit funding, and (vi) create a consortium.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Past and future of neuroblastoma screening in Japan.

T. Sawada

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00043426-199211000-00007

1992-11-01

Abstract:In Japan, neuroblastoma is a common malignant tumor for children and its prognosis is unfavorable. Since this tumor excretes excessive amounts of vanillylmandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA), catecholamine metabolites, into urine, both are sensitive diagnostic markers for neuroblastoma. In 1974, to improve the prognosis for neuroblastoma, a mass screening program by a qualitative VMA spot test for early detection of this tumor for 6-month-old infants was started in Kyoto, Japan. Subsequently, mass screening was also conducted in other areas in Japan. In 1985, mass screening commenced as a nationwide program throughout Japan, and in 1988, screening by quantitative measurement of VMA, HVA, and creatinine was recommended by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. During the 6 years from 1984 to 1989, 468 cases of neuroblastoma were detected from among 5,052,165 infants screened by this program. Analysis of findings in the 357 cases detected by mass screening from its inception in Kyoto until December of 1988 have been presented. The survival rate for these cases was 97% (348 of 357 cases). The prognosis of tumors detected by mass screening has clearly been favorable. In addition, survival rates were improved for all cases of neuroblastoma in Kyoto after the introduction of mass screening. The increased incidence of neuroblastoma in infants and the change in age distribution of all cases of neuroblastoma following the inception of urinary screening as well as the occurrence of spontaneous regression of neuroblastoma in relation to the screening program are discussed. Future problems facing mass screening for neuroblastoma are also presented.
Concept: Dynamic Risk Assessment for AI-Controlled Robotic Systems

Philipp Grimmeisen,Friedrich Sautter,Andrey Morozov

2024-01-25

Abstract:AI-controlled robotic systems pose a risk to human workers and the environment. Classical risk assessment methods cannot adequately describe such black box systems. Therefore, new methods for a dynamic risk assessment of such AI-controlled systems are required. In this paper, we introduce the concept of a new dynamic risk assessment approach for AI-controlled robotic systems. The approach pipelines five blocks: (i) a Data Logging that logs the data of the given simulation, (ii) a Skill Detection that automatically detects the executed skills with a deep learning technique, (iii) a Behavioral Analysis that creates the behavioral profile of the robotic systems, (iv) a Risk Model Generation that automatically transforms the behavioral profile and risk data containing the failure probabilities of robotic hardware components into advanced hybrid risk models, and (v) Risk Model Solvers for the numerical evaluation of the generated hybrid risk models.

Robotics
Managing workplace AI risks and the future of work

John Howard,Paul Schulte

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23653

2024-09-02

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI)-the field of computer science that designs machines to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence-has seen rapid advances in the development of foundation systems such as large language models. In the workplace, the adoption of AI technologies can result in a broad range of hazards and risks to workers, as illustrated by the recent growth in industrial robotics and algorithmic management. Sources of risk from deployment of AI technologies across society and in the workplace have led to numerous government and private sector guidelines that propose principles governing the design and use of trustworthy and ethical AI. As AI capabilities become integrated in devices, machines, and systems across industry sectors, employers, workers, and occupational safety and health practitioners will be challenged to manage AI risks to worker health, safety, and well-being. Five risk management options are presented as ways to assure that only trustworthy and ethical AI enables workplace devices, machinery, and processes. AI technologies will play a significant role in the future of work. The occupational safety and health practice and research communities need to ensure that the promise of these new AI technologies results in benefit, not harm, to workers.
Towards Risk Analysis of the Impact of AI on the Deliberate Biological Threat Landscape

Matthew E. Walsh

2024-06-11

Abstract:The perception that the convergence of biological engineering and artificial intelligence (AI) could enable increased biorisk has recently drawn attention to the governance of biotechnology and artificial intelligence. The 2023 Executive Order, Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, requires an assessment of how artificial intelligence can increase biorisk. Within this perspective, quantitative and qualitative frameworks for evaluating biorisk are presented. Both frameworks are exercised using notional scenarios and their benefits and limitations are then discussed. Finally, the perspective concludes by noting that assessment and evaluation methodologies must keep pace with advances of AI in the life sciences.

Computers and Society
Autonomous drone swarms and the contested imaginaries of artificial intelligence

Jutta Weber,Weber, Jutta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s42984-023-00076-7

2024-01-12

Digital War

Abstract:AI-based, autonomous weapon systems (AWS) have the potential of weapons of mass destruction and thereby massively add to the intensifying dialectic of fear between ground and space and the pervasive mass human vulnerability of being tracked and targeted from above. Nevertheless, the dangerous effects of the proliferation of AWS have not been and still are not widely acknowledged. On the one hand, the capabilities and effects of AWS are downplayed by the military and the arms industry staging these systems as precise and clean. Recently, it is also argued that they can be built on the basis of a 'responsible' or 'trustworthy' artificial intelligence (AI). On the other hand, inadequate sociotechnical imaginaries of AI as a conscious, evil super-intelligence circulated by Hollywood blockbuster films such as 'Terminator' or 'Ex Machina' dominate the public discourse. Their massive overstatement of the power of the technology and also their focus on often irrelevant imaginaries such as the 'Terminator' hinders a realistic understanding of the AI's capabilities. Against this background, arms control advocates develop new imaginaries to show the loss of 'meaningful human control' (Sharkey 2016) and its problematic consequences. In October 2023, the deployment of autonomous military in the battlefield has already been officially confirmed by an Ukrainian drone company (Hambling 2023).
Beyond Accidents and Misuse: Decoding the Structural Risk Dynamics of Artificial Intelligence

Kyle A Kilian

2024-08-16

Abstract:The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) across contemporary industries is not just a technological upgrade but a transformation with profound structural implications. This paper explores the concept of structural risks associated with the rapid integration of advanced AI systems across social, economic, and political systems. This framework challenges the conventional perspectives that primarily focus on direct AI threats such as accidents and misuse and suggests that these more proximate risks are interconnected and influenced by a larger sociotechnical system. By analyzing the interactions between technological advancements and social dynamics, this study isolates three primary categories of structural risk: antecedent structural causes, antecedent system causes, and deleterious feedback loops. We present a comprehensive framework to understand the causal chains that drive these risks, highlighting the interdependence between structural forces and the more proximate risks of misuse and system failures. The paper articulates how unchecked AI advancement can reshape power dynamics, trust, and incentive structures, leading to profound and often unpredictable shifts. We introduce a methodological research agenda for mapping, simulating, and gaming these dynamics aimed at preparing policymakers and national security officials for the challenges posed by next-generation AI technologies. The paper concludes with policy recommendations.

Computers and Society
Apparent nonsolvent water and osmotic behavior of yeast cells.

A. D. de Bruijne,J. van Steveninck

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:
From Machine Learning to Artificial General Intelligence: A Roadmap and Implications

Omar Ibrahim Obaid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58496/mjbd/2023/012

2023-08-24

Abstract:The prospect of developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) with the same comprehensive capabilities as the human mind presents humanity both tremendous opportunities and dire risks. This paper explores the potential applications and implications of AGI across diverse domains including science, healthcare, education, security, and the economy. However, realizing AGI's benefits requires proactive alignment of its goals and values with those of humanity through responsible governance. As AGI approaches and possibly surpasses human-level intellectual abilities, we must grapple with complex ethical issues surrounding autonomy, consciousness, and disruptive societal impacts. The exact timeline for achieving AGI remains uncertain, but its emergence will likely stem from the convergence of advanced technologies like big data, neural networks, and quantum computing. Ultimately, the creation of AGI represents humanity's greatest opportunity to profoundly enhance flourishing, as well as our greatest challenge to steer its development toward benevolence rather than catastrophe. With sage preparation and foresight, AGI could usher in an unparalleled era of insight and invention for the betterment of all people. But without adequate safeguards and alignment, its disruptive potential could prove catastrophically destabilizing. This paper argues prudently governing the transition to AGI is essential for harnessing its transformative power to elevate rather than endanger our collective future.

Philosophy,Political Science,Computer Science,Education
Autonomous Vehicles and Embedded Artificial Intelligence: The Challenges of Framing Machine Driving Decisions

Martin Cunneen,Martin Mullins,Finbarr Murphy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2019.1600301

IF: 2.777

2019-05-13

Applied Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:<span>With the advent of autonomous vehicles society will need to confront a new set of risks which, for the first time, includes the ability of socially embedded forms of artificial intelligence to make complex risk mitigation decisions: decisions that will ultimately engender tangible life and death consequences. Since AI decisionality is inherently different to human decision-making processes, questions are therefore raised regarding how AI weighs decisions, how we are to mediate these decisions, and what such decisions mean in relation to others. Therefore, society, policy, and end-users, need to fully understand such differences. While AI decisions can be contextualised to specific meanings, significant challenges remain in terms of the technology of AI decisionality, the conceptualisation of AI decisions, and the extent to which various actors understand them. This is particularly acute in terms of analysing the benefits and risks of AI decisions. Due to the potential safety benefits, autonomous vehicles are often presented as significant risk mitigation technologies. There is also a need to understand the potential new risks which autonomous vehicle driving decisions may present. Such new risks are framed as decisional limitations in that artificial driving intelligence will lack certain decisional capacities. This is most evident in the inability to annotate and categorise the driving environment in terms of human values and moral understanding. In both cases there is a need to scrutinise how autonomous vehicle decisional capacity is conceptually framed and how this, in turn, impacts a wider grasp of the technology in terms of risks and benefits. This paper interrogates the significant shortcomings in the current framing of the debate, both in terms of safety discussions and in consideration of AI as a <i>moral</i> actor, and offers a number of ways forward.</span>

computer science, artificial intelligence,engineering, electrical & electronic

[Coping with shortage of plasma and albumin: a strategy for artificial liver].

Risk assessment at AGI companies: A review of popular risk assessment techniques from other safety-critical industries

Examining the Differential Risk from High-level Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Control

Technical Countermeasures for Security Risks of Artificial General Intelligence

An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks

Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress

How Do AI Timelines Affect Existential Risk?

AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES)

AI Consciousness and Public Perceptions: Four Futures

Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?

AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research

An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI

Past and future of neuroblastoma screening in Japan.

Concept: Dynamic Risk Assessment for AI-Controlled Robotic Systems

Managing workplace AI risks and the future of work

Towards Risk Analysis of the Impact of AI on the Deliberate Biological Threat Landscape

Autonomous drone swarms and the contested imaginaries of artificial intelligence

Beyond Accidents and Misuse: Decoding the Structural Risk Dynamics of Artificial Intelligence

Apparent nonsolvent water and osmotic behavior of yeast cells.

From Machine Learning to Artificial General Intelligence: A Roadmap and Implications

Autonomous Vehicles and Embedded Artificial Intelligence: The Challenges of Framing Machine Driving Decisions