Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

AI Risk Management Should Incorporate Both Safety and Security

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

arxiv 2405.19524 v1 pith:P5GXBBZI submitted 2024-05-29 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords securityrisksafetymanagementinterplayacrosscommunitiesdisciplines
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The exposure of security vulnerabilities in safety-aligned language models, e.g., susceptibility to adversarial attacks, has shed light on the intricate interplay between AI safety and AI security. Although the two disciplines now come together under the overarching goal of AI risk management, they have historically evolved separately, giving rise to differing perspectives. Therefore, in this paper, we advocate that stakeholders in AI risk management should be aware of the nuances, synergies, and interplay between safety and security, and unambiguously take into account the perspectives of both disciplines in order to devise mostly effective and holistic risk mitigation approaches. Unfortunately, this vision is often obfuscated, as the definitions of the basic concepts of "safety" and "security" themselves are often inconsistent and lack consensus across communities. With AI risk management being increasingly cross-disciplinary, this issue is particularly salient. In light of this conceptual challenge, we introduce a unified reference framework to clarify the differences and interplay between AI safety and AI security, aiming to facilitate a shared understanding and effective collaboration across communities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The State of Multilingual LLM Safety Research: From Measuring the Language Gap to Mitigating It

    cs.CL 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM safety research at ACL venues from 2020 to 2024 is predominantly English-only, and the language gap is growing over time.

  2. Robustness tests for biomedical foundation models should tailor to specifications

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes task-tailored 'robustness specifications' to guide robustness testing of biomedical foundation models across their lifecycle.

  3. Trustworthy AI: Safety, Bias, and Privacy -- A Survey

    cs.CR 2025-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey of LLM safety alignment, spurious correlation mitigation, and membership inference defenses, with a self-cited perspective on robust safety.

Pith tools