The DOI matches its DataCite record.
AI Risk Skepticism, A Comprehensive Survey
Open accessAbstract
In this thorough study, we took a closer look at the skepticism that has arisen with respect to potential dangers associated with artificial intelligence, denoted as AI Risk Skepticism. Our study takes into account different points of view on the topic and draws parallels with other forms of skepticism that have shown up in science. We categorize the various skepticisms regarding the dangers of AI by the type of mistaken thinking involved. We hope this will be of interest and value to AI researchers concerned about the future of AI and the risks that it may pose. The issues of skepticism and risk in AI are decidedly important and require serious consideration. By addressing these issues with the rigor and precision of scientific research, we hope to better understand the objections we face and to find satisfactory ways to resolve them.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In professional contexts, skepticism often centers on ethical concerns.
“In these contexts and others, skepticism often centers on ethical concerns that take many shapes and forms (Adepoju et al., 2024; Ambartsoumean and Yampolskiy, 2023).”
From From avoidance to adoption: strategies for integrating AI in higher education contexts (2026) · cites this paper as Ambartsoumean and Yampolskiy, 2023
Skepticism toward AI is not confined to education but is shared across professional domains such as medicine, law, and economics.
“At the broadest level, skepticism toward AI is not confined to education but is shared across professional domains such as medicine, law, and economics.”
From From avoidance to adoption: strategies for integrating AI in higher education contexts (2026) · cites this paper as Ambartsoumean and Yampolskiy, 2023
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Self-Taught Optimizer (STOP): Recursively Self-Improving Code Generation
Zelikman, E., Lorch, E., Mackey, L., & Kalai, A. T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.02304 · Cited by 4
“This is a particularly contentious topic recently, with intensified concern over negative consequences (Ambartsoumean & Yampolskiy, 2023; Gabriel & Ghazavi, 2021).”
BackgroundExamining popular arguments against AI existential risk: a philosophical analysis
Swoboda, T., Uuk, R., Lauwaert, L., Rebera, A. P., Oimann, A.-K., Chomanski, B., & Prunkl, C. (2026) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09881-y · Cited by 1
“(see Pascual, 2024) When one takes a closer look at the discussion, it is striking that there is a certain asymmetry at play.”
From avoidance to adoption: strategies for integrating AI in higher education contexts
Gerard, J., Hadi, M. U., Natsheh, B. R. R., Singh, M., & Reid, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1869723
Metadata
- Authors
- Ambartsoumean, V. M., & Yampolskiy, R. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Louisville (US)
- ORCID
- Yampolskiy, Roman V.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2303.03885
- OpenAlex
- W4323651008
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- AI risks, skepticism, cognitive biases, logical fallacies, future of AI, AI safety
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
