REVIEW 4 cited by
A Taxonomy of Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AI
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
Through a systematic review of academic literature, we propose a taxonomy of systemic risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI), in particular general-purpose AI. Following the EU AI Act's definition, we consider systemic risks as large-scale threats that can affect entire societies or economies. Starting with an initial pool of 1,781 documents, we analyzed 86 selected papers to identify 13 categories of systemic risks and 50 contributing sources. Our findings reveal a complex landscape of potential threats, ranging from environmental harm and structural discrimination to governance failures and loss of control. Key sources of systemic risk emerge from knowledge gaps, challenges in recognizing harm, and the unpredictable trajectory of AI development. The taxonomy provides a snapshot of current academic literature on systemic risks. This paper contributes to AI safety research by providing a structured groundwork for understanding and addressing the potential large-scale negative societal impacts of general-purpose AI. The taxonomy can inform policymakers in risk prioritization and regulatory development.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
An approach to systemic risks of AI through the lens of emergence, collective action problems, and externalities
Systemic AI risks are presented as emergent threats to public goods, driven chiefly by collective action problems and complex externalities, amplified by concentration, feedback, and information gaps.
-
Open Problems in AI Incident Governance
Existing AI incident frameworks lack consistency across definitions, classification, monitoring and reporting, reducing analysis quality; the authors propose principles, guidelines and a reporting template to close the gap.
-
Legal Alignment for Safe and Ethical AI
Legal alignment as a field: AI systems should (1) follow the content of law, (2) use legal-interpretation methods for reasoning, and (3) be built on legal structures like agency and fiduciary duties.
-
Developing a Risk Identification Framework for Foundation Model Uses
The paper derives four design requirements for use-based foundation model risk identification and presents an initial questionnaire-based framework demonstrated on a visitor-center chatbot example.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.