REVIEW 5 cited by
Concrete Problems in AI Safety, Revisited
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
As AI systems proliferate in society, the AI community is increasingly preoccupied with the concept of AI Safety, namely the prevention of failures due to accidents that arise from an unanticipated departure of a system's behavior from designer intent in AI deployment. We demonstrate through an analysis of real world cases of such incidents that although current vocabulary captures a range of the encountered issues of AI deployment, an expanded socio-technical framing will be required for a more complete understanding of how AI systems and implemented safety mechanisms fail and succeed in real life.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Whose View of Safety? A Deep DIVE Dataset for Pluralistic Alignment of Text-to-Image Models
A demographically diverse annotation dataset shows that safety perceptions for text-to-image outputs vary by rater identity and that conventional safety classifiers under-detect bias harms flagged by minority-group raters.
-
Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliability
Measuring 14 AI agents across two benchmarks, the paper finds 18 months of accuracy gains (≈0.21/yr) bought only small reliability gains (0.03–0.10/yr) under its consistency/robustness/predictability/safety framework.
-
AI Safety for Everyone
A systematic review of 383 papers argues that AI safety research already covers a wide spectrum of concrete, near-term concerns and should be understood as part of traditional technological safety practice.
-
Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AI
AI safety is a systems-governance problem: six recurring organizational failure patterns from past disasters remain unlearned in AI development, so component-level fixes like benchmarks and alignment cannot deliver safety.
-
Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects
A position paper argues that understanding AI's second-order effects requires moving from static benchmarks to an ecosystem of field testing, red teaming, and contextual evaluation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.