CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 51Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence

Open access
Slattery, Peter, Saeri, Alexander K., Grundy, Emily A. C., Graham, Jess, Noetel, Michael, Uuk, Risto, Dao, James, Pour, Soroush, Casper, Stephen, Thompson, Neil·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2408.12622arXiv 2408.12622

Preprint — published as 10.1016/j.patter.2026.101517

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping society, from video generation to medical diagnosis, coding agents to autonomous vehicles. Yet researchers, policymakers, and technology companies lack shared terminology for discussing AI risks. Consider "privacy": one framework uses this term to describe a model's ability to leak sensitive training data, while another uses it to mean freedom from government surveillance. Conversely, researchers have introduced "Goodhart's law," "specification gaming," "reward hacking," and "mesa-optimization" to describe the same phenomenon of AI systems optimizing for measured proxies rather than intended goals. This terminological diversity creates friction: comparing findings across studies requires mapping between frameworks, and comprehensive risk coverage requires consulting multiple taxonomies that use different organizing principles. This paper addresses this challenge by creating a comprehensive catalog of AI risks. We systematically analyzed every major AI risk framework published to date-74 frameworks containing 1,725 distinct risks-and organized them into a unified system. Our two classification systems reveal important patterns: contrary to common assumptions, human decisions cause nearly as many AI risks (38%) as the AI systems themselves (42%). The work provides practical tools for anyone working on AI safety, from developers conducting risk assessments to policymakers writing regulations to auditors evaluating AI systems. By establishing a common reference point, this repository creates the foundation for more coordinated and comprehensive approaches to managing AI's risks while realizing its benefits.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2408.12622

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The categories 'Power centralization and unfair distribution of benefits' and 'Lack of transparency or interpretability' correspond respectively to distributive effects of unequally dividing epistemic goods through unequal performance rates of LLMs across languages, and to hermeneutical and testimonial injustices regarding algorithmic opacity.

    “Finally, within the domains of”

    From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The risk categories 'False or misleading information' and 'Pollution of information ecosystems and loss of consensus reality' are related to the spread of seemingly objective but invalid information that misleads audiences or drowns out other sources, thereby destabilizing epistemic practices of truth finding.

    “Second, located in the domain”

    From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The MIT AI Risk Repository categories 'Unfair discrimination and misrepresentation' and 'Unequal performance across groups' are related to hermeneutical factors such as group representation in training data, affecting the legitimacy of testimonies or the contribution of specific sociocultural groups.

    “First -within the domain of”

    From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The AI Risk Repository of Slattery et al. (2024) is a database and taxonomy of risks, deliberately agnostic about institutional remedies.

    “The most comprehensive recent stocktake, the AI Risk Repository of Slattery et al. (2024), is a database and taxonomy of risks, deliberately agnostic about institutional remedies.”

    From Commons-Governed Artificial Intelligence: A Taxonomy of Collective Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Slattery et al. (2024)

    The Summary and Discussion describe a comprehensive database of AI risks organized into two taxonomies. The copy does not say the repository is deliberately agnostic about institutional remedies; the Conclusions discuss its role in governance, and Practical Implications for Technology Management suggests uses for targeted regulatory interventions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The subcategories 'Disinformation, surveillance, and influence at scale' and 'Fraud scams, and targeted manipulation' converge with generative manipulative testimonial injustice.

    “Third, within the domain of”

    From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. S4. Sharma, S. (2024). Benefits or concerns of AI: A multistakeholder responsibility. Futures 157 , 103328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103328. · DOI
  2. S5. Critch, A., and Russell, S. (2023). TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.06924. · DOI
  3. S6. Cui, T., Wang, Y., Fu, C., Xiao, Y., Li, S., Deng, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, Q., Qiu, Z., Li, P., et al. (2024). Risk Taxonomy, Mitigation, and Assessment Benchmarks of Large Language Model Systems. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.05778. · DOI
  4. S7. Cunha, P.R., and Estima, J. (2023). Navigating the landscape of AI ethics and responsibility. In Progress in Artificial Intelligence Lecture notes in computer science. (Springer Nature Switzerland), pp. 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49008-8\_8. · DOI
  5. S8. Deng, J., Cheng, J., Sun, H., Zhang, Z., and Huang, M. (2023). Towards Safer Generative Language Models: A Survey on Safety Risks, Evaluations, and Improvements. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.09270. · DOI
  6. S9. Hagendorff, T. (2024). Mapping the Ethics of Generative AI: A Comprehensive Scoping Review. Preprint at arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.08323. · DOI
  7. S10. Hogenhout, L. (2021). A Framework for Ethical AI at the United Nations. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.12547. · DOI · Paper page
  8. S11. Kilian, K.A., Ventura, C.J., and Bailey, M.M. (2023). Examining the differential risk from highlevel artificial intelligence and the question of control. Futures 151 , 103182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103182. · DOI
  9. S12. McLean, S., Read, G.J.M., Thompson, J., Baber, C., Stanton, N.A., and Salmon, P.M. (2023). The risks associated with Artificial General Intelligence: A systematic review. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 35 , 649-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2021.1964003. · DOI
  10. S13. Meek, T., Barham, H., Beltaif, N., Kaadoor, A., and Akhter, T. (2016). Managing the ethical and risk implications of rapid advances in artificial intelligence: A literature review. In 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/picmet.2016.7806752. · DOI · Paper page
  11. S14. Paes, V.M., Silveira, F.F., and Akkari, A.C.S. (2023). Social impacts of artificial intelligence and mitigation recommendations: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 7th Brazilian Technology Symposium (BTSym'21) Smart innovation, systems and technologies. (Springer International Publishing), pp. 521-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04435-9\_54. · DOI
  12. S15. Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla-Akbari, N. 'mah, Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., et al. (2023). Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM
  13. S16. Sherman, E., and Eisenberg, I. (2023). AI Risk Profiles: A Standards Proposal for Predeployment AI Risk Disclosures. AAAI 38 , 23047-23052. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i21.30348. · DOI
  14. S17. Solaiman, I., Talat, Z., Agnew, W., Ahmad, L., Baker, D., Blodgett, S.L., Daumé, H., III, Dodge, J., Evans, E., Hooker, S., et al. (2023). Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.05949. · DOI
  15. S18. Steimers, A., and Schneider, M. (2022). Sources of Risk of AI Systems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 . https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063641. · DOI
  16. S19. Tan, S., Taeihagh, A., and Baxter, K. (2022). The Risks of Machine Learning Systems. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.09852. · DOI
  17. S20. Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2022). Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency FAccT '22. (Association for Computing Machinery), pp. 214-229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088. · DOI · Paper page
  18. S21. Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021). Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.04359. · DOI · Paper page
  19. S22. Weidinger, L., Rauh, M., Marchal, N., Manzini, A., Hendricks, L.A., Mateos-Garcia, J., Bergman, S., Kay, J., Griffin, C., Bariach, B., et al. (2023). Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.11986. · DOI · Paper page
  20. S23. Wirtz, B.W., Weyerer, J.C., and Kehl, I. (2022). Governance of artificial intelligence: A risk and guideline-based integrative framework. Gov. Inf. Q. 39 , 101685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101685. · DOI
  21. S24. Wirtz, B.W., Weyerer, J.C., and Sturm, B.J. (2020). The Dark Sides of Artificial Intelligence: An Integrated AI Governance Framework for Public Administration. International Journal of Public Administration 43 , 818-829. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1749851. · DOI · Paper page
  22. S25. Zhang, X., Chan, F.T.S., Yan, C., and Bose, I. (2022). Towards risk-aware artificial intelligence and machine learning systems: An overview. Decis. Support Syst. 159 , 113800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2022.113800. · DOI
  23. S26. Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M., and Woodside, T. (2023). An overview of catastrophic AI risks. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.12001. · DOI
  24. S27. Vidgen, B., Agrawal, A., Ahmed, A.M., Akinwande, V., Al-Nuaimi, N., Alfaraj, N., Alhajjar, E., Aroyo, L., Bavalatti, T., Blili-Hamelin, B., et al. (2024). Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.12241. · DOI · Paper page
  25. S28. Gabriel, I., Manzini, A., Keeling, G., Hendricks, L.A., Rieser, V., Iqbal, H., Toma š ev, N., Ktena, I., Kenton, Z., Rodriguez, M., et al. (2024). The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.16244. · DOI · Paper page
  26. S29. Shevlane, T., Farquhar, S., Garfinkel, B., Phuong, M., Whittlestone, J., Leung, J., Kokotajlo, D., Marchal, N., Anderljung, M., Kolt, N., et al. (2023). Model evaluation for extreme risks. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.15324. · DOI · Paper page
  27. S30. Sun, H., Zhang, Z., Deng, J., Cheng, J., and Huang, M. (2023). Safety Assessment of Chinese Large Language Models. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.10436. · DOI
  28. S31. Zhang, Z., Lei, L., Wu, L., Sun, R., Huang, Y., Long, C., Liu, X., Lei, X., Tang, J., and Huang, M. (2023). SafetyBench: Evaluating the safety of Large Language Models with multiple choice questions. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.07045. · DOI · Paper page
  29. S32. Habbal, A., Ali, M.K., and Abuzaraida, M.A. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Trust, Risk and Security Management (AI TRiSM): Frameworks, applications, challenges and future research directions. Expert Syst. Appl. 240 , 122442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122442. · DOI · Paper page
  30. S33. Liu, Y., Yao, Y., Ton, J.-F., Zhang, X., Guo, R., Cheng, H., Klochkov, Y., Taufiq, M.F., and Li, H. (2023). Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.05374. · DOI · Paper page
  31. S34. Stahl, B.C., and Eke, D. (2024). The ethics of ChatGPT - Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 74 , 102700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700. · DOI · Paper page
  32. S35. Nah, F.F.H., Zheng, R., Cai, J., Siau, K., and Chen, L. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 25 , 277-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2023.2233814. · DOI · Paper page
  33. S36. Ji, J., Qiu, T., Chen, B., Zhang, B., Lou, H., Wang, K., Duan, Y., He, Z., Zhou, J., Zhang, Z., et al. (2023). AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.19852. · DOI
  34. S37. Hendrycks, D., and Mazeika, M. (2022). X-Risk Analysis for AI Research. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.05862. · DOI
  35. S38. Giarmoleo, F.V., Ferrero, I., Rocchi, M., and Pellegrini, M.M. (2024). What ethics can say on artificial intelligence: Insights from a systematic literature review. Bus. Soc. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12336. · DOI
  36. S39. Kumar, K.M., and Singh, J.S. (2023). Ethical issues in the development of artificial intelligence: recognizing the risks. International Journal of Ethics and Systems ahead-of-print . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-05-2023-0107. · DOI
  37. S40. Saghiri, A.M., Vahidipour, S.M., Jabbarpour, M.R., Sookhak, M., and Forestiero, A. (2022). A Survey of Artificial Intelligence Challenges: Analyzing the Definitions, Relationships, and Evolutions. NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. E Appl. Sci. 12 , 4054. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12084054. · DOI
  38. S41. Yampolskiy, R.V. (2016). Taxonomy of pathways to dangerous artificial intelligence. In The Workshops of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  39. S42. Teixeira, S., Rodrigues, J., Veloso, B., and Gama, J. (2022). An Exploratory Diagnosis of Artificial Intelligence Risks for a Responsible Governance. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance ICEGOV '22. (Association for Computing Machinery), pp. 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560107.3560298. · DOI
  40. S44. Coghlan, S., and Parker, C. (2023). Harm to nonhuman animals from AI: A systematic account and framework. Philos. Technol. 36 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00627-6. · DOI
  41. S46. Ferrara, E. (2024). GenAI against humanity: nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 7 , 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-024-00250-1. · DOI
  42. S47. G'sell, F. (2024). Regulating under uncertainty: Governance options for generative AI. Preprint at SSRN, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4918704. · DOI
  43. S48. National Institute of Standards and Technology (US) (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1) (National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)) https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.ai.600-1. · DOI · Paper page
  44. S50. Zeng, Y., Klyman, K., Zhou, A., Yang, Y., Pan, M., Jia, R., Song, D., Liang, P., and Li, B. (2024). AI risk categorization decoded (AIR 2024): From government regulations to corporate policies. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.17864. · DOI
  45. S51. Everitt, T., Lea, G., and Hutter, M. (2018). AGI Safety Literature Review. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1805.01109. · DOI
  46. S53. Maas, M.M. (2023). Advanced AI governance: A literature review of problems, options, and proposals. Preprint at SSRN, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629460. · DOI
  47. S54. Leech, G., Garfinkel, S., Yagudin, M., Briand, A., and Zhuravlev, A. (2024). Ten hard problems in artificial intelligence we must get right. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2402.04464. · DOI
  48. S55. Clarke, S., and Whittlestone, J. (2022). A survey of the potential long-term impacts of AI. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534131. · DOI
  49. S57. Ghosh, S., Frase, H., Williams, A., Luger, S., Röttger, P., Barez, F., McGregor, S., Fricklas, K., Kumar, M., Feuillade--Montixi, Q., et al. (2025). AILUMINATE: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.05731. · DOI
  50. S58. Abercrombie, G., Benbouzid, D., Giudici, P., Golpayegani, D., Hernandez, J., Noro, P., Pandit, H., Paraschou, E., Pownall, C., Prajapati, J., et al. (2024). A collaborative, human-centred taxonomy of AI, algorithmic, and automation harms. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.01294. · DOI · Paper page
  51. S59. Schnitzer, R., Hapfelmeier, A., Gaube, S., and Zillner, S. (2024). AI Hazard Management: A framework for the systematic management of root causes for AI risks. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.16727. · DOI
  52. S61. Uuk, R., Gutierrez, C.I., Guppy, D., Lauwaert, L., Kasirzadeh, A., Velasco, L., Slattery, P., and Prunkl, C. (2025). A taxonomy of systemic risks from general-purpose AI. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5030173. · DOI
  53. S62. Gipi š kis, R., Joaquin, A.S., Chin, Z.S., Regenfuß, A., Gil, A., and Holtman, K. (2024). Risk sources and risk management measures in support of standards for general-purpose AI systems. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.23472. · DOI
  54. S63. Hammond, L., Chan, A., Clifton, J., Hoelscher-Obermaier, J., Khan, A., McLean, E., Smith, C., Barfuss, W., Foerster, J., Gaven č iak, T., et al. (2025). Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.14143. · DOI · Paper page
  55. S64. Marchal, N., Xu, R., Elasmar, R., Gabriel, I., Goldberg, B., and Isaac, W. (2024). Generative AI misuse: A taxonomy of tactics and insights from real-world data. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.13843. · DOI
  56. S66. Li, M., Bickersteth, W., Tang, N., Hong, J., Cranor, L., Shen, H., and Heidari, H. (2025). A closer look at the existing risks of Generative AI: Mapping the who, what, and how of real-world incidents. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2505.22073. · DOI
  57. S68. Chin, Z.S. (2025). Dimensional characterization and pathway modeling for catastrophic AI risks. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06411. · DOI
  58. S70. Perlo, J., Robey, A., Barez, F., Floridi, L., and Mökander, J. (2025). Embodied AI: Emerging risks and opportunities for policy action. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2509.00117. · DOI
  59. S71. Tang, X., Jin, Q., Zhu, K., Yuan, T., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Qu, M., Zhao, Y., Tang, J., Zhang, Z., et al. (2025). Risks of AI scientists: Prioritizing safeguarding over autonomy. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.04247. · DOI
  60. S73. Anwar, U., Saparov, A., Rando, J., Paleka, D., Turpin, M., Hase, P., Lubana, E.S., Jenner, E., Casper, S., Sourbut, O., et al. (2024). Foundational challenges in assuring alignment and safety of large language models. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.09932. · DOI · Paper page
  61. (2025). A survey on responsible LLMs: Inherent risk, malicious use, and mitigation strategy. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.09431. · DOI
  62. S75. Castaño-Pulgarín, S.A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L.M.T., and López, H.M.H. (2021). Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 58 , 101608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608. · DOI · Paper page
  63. S76. Bastos, M.T., and Mercea, D. (2019). The Brexit Botnet and User-Generated Hyperpartisan News. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 37 , 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317734157. · DOI
  64. S78. Bourget, D., and Chalmers, D. (2023). Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPapers Survey. Philosophers' Imprint 23 . https://doi.org/10.3998/phimp.2109. · DOI
  65. S79. Francken, J.C., Beerendonk, L., Molenaar, D., Fahrenfort, J.J., Kiverstein, J.D., Seth, A.K., and van Gaal, S. (2022). An academic survey on theoretical foundations, common assumptions and the current state of consciousness science. Neurosci Conscious 2022 , niac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niac011. · DOI · Paper page
  66. S80. Motwani, S.R., Baranchuk, M., Strohmeier, M., Bolina, V., Torr, P.H.S., Hammond, L., and de Witt, C.S. (2024). Secret Collusion among Generative AI Agents. Preprint at arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.07510. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Grundy, E. A. C., Graham, J., Noetel, M., Uuk, R., Dao, J., Pour, S., Casper, S., & Thompson, N.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Noetel, Michael
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
101517-101517
ISSN
2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2408.12622
arXiv
2408.12622
OpenAlex
W4402698709
Cited by
51
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 2
FWCI
180.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
AI risks, AI risk taxonomy, risk classification, risk terminology, AI governance, artificial intelligence in auditing, discrimination, privacy violations, misinformation, weapons development

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