arXiv:2410. 22526v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards.
arXiv:2607. 19292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios.
arXiv:2607. 24243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high.
arXiv:2607. 29405v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation.
arXiv:2607. 01421v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage.
arXiv:2607. 23365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education.
Engineering management research has produced mature frameworks for software risk: ownership by feature, escalation by severity, and assurance by test coverage. These frameworks implicitly assume deterministic behavior, discrete and auditable change events, and clear component-to-owner mappings.
arXiv:2604. 15579v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: There is increasing interest in integrating AI agents that invoke tools into domain-specific commercial software, where unintended tool calls can cause serious security and safety incidents.
arXiv:2608. 04921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments.
arXiv:2607. 14353v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As automated decision-making and data-driven technologies pervade society and are used to manage consequential outcomes, understanding the technology's capabilities, limitations, and attendant risks in context requires analysis of full sociotechnical systems.
arXiv:2606. 16319v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern AI systems exhibit structural failures that capability scaling alone does not reliably fix: they optimize under-specified objectives with no architectural mechanism to question whether the objective should be optimized at all.
arXiv:2608. 11274v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The dominant paradigm treats AI safety as a property to be instilled during model training via RLHF, DPO, or Constitutional AI.
arXiv:2608. 08601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: To anticipate socio-technical risks from AI agents, organizations need taxonomies to classify them.