Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI (Interim Report)

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

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 2412.05282 v2 pith:GNK3H7ZH submitted 2024-11-05 cs.CY cs.AI

Yoshua Bengio , Sören Mindermann , Daniel Privitera , Tamay Besiroglu , Rishi Bommasani , Stephen Casper , Yejin Choi , Danielle Goldfarb
show 36 more authors
Hoda Heidari Leila Khalatbari Shayne Longpre Vasilios Mavroudis Mantas Mazeika Kwan Yee Ng Chinasa T. Okolo Deborah Raji Theodora Skeadas Florian Tramèr Bayo Adekanmbi Paul Christiano David Dalrymple Thomas G. Dietterich Edward Felten Pascale Fung Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas Nick Jennings Andreas Krause Percy Liang Teresa Ludermir Vidushi Marda Helen Margetts John A. McDermid Arvind Narayanan Alondra Nelson Alice Oh Gopal Ramchurn Stuart Russell Marietje Schaake Dawn Song Alvaro Soto Lee Tiedrich Gaël Varoquaux Andrew Yao Ya-Qin Zhang
This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords reportinternationalscientificadvancedexpertsinterimsafetyunderstanding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This is the interim publication of the first International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI. The report synthesises the scientific understanding of general-purpose AI -- AI that can perform a wide variety of tasks -- with a focus on understanding and managing its risks. A diverse group of 75 AI experts contributed to this report, including an international Expert Advisory Panel nominated by 30 countries, the EU, and the UN. Led by the Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content. The final report is available at arXiv:2501.17805

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Scientific reasoning does not reliably translate into scientific forecasting in frontier AI

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Introduces the CUSP benchmark across 4760 events and finds frontier AI models can pick plausible directions but fail to predict whether or when scientific advances will occur, with performance varying by domain and in...

  2. A New Perspective On AI Safety Through Control Theory Methodologies

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    This paper outlines a new conceptual paradigm, data control, which transfers control-theoretic system analysis and properties to AI systems to support generic AI safety assurance.

  3. A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper surveys security risks of LLM agents, organizes them into a five-level autonomy taxonomy, and proposes an untested CMDP-based architecture called R2A2.

  4. From Rogue to Safe AI: The Role of Explicit Refusals in Aligning LLMs with International Humanitarian Law

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Across eight LLMs, most explicitly IHL-violating prompts are refused, and a single system-level safety prompt raises explanatory refusal rates in six of eight models, though the benchmark is not publicly released.

Pith tools