Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Catastrophic Liability: Managing Systemic Risks in Frontier AI Development

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Voluntary AI standards may already bind frontier labs under U.S. tort law, the paper argues, so lacking a documented halt plan could be negligence.

desk verdict A readable, well-organized policy synthesis arguing that voluntary AI standards can shape U.S. negligence law, but the central claim that labs are already breaching a duty of care outruns the law it cites because the causation-to-injury link is never made. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00616 v2 pith:PGQJ5XZI submitted 2025-05-01 cs.CY

Aidan Kierans , Kaley Rittichier , Utku Sonsayar , Avijit Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords AIliabilitynegligencedutyofcaresystemicriskfrontiersafetydocumentationNISTManagementFrameworktortlaw
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that voluntary AI safety standards are not legally toothless: U.S. tort law lets courts judge negligence by “reasonable practice” rather than common practice, so frameworks like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and public industry commitments can count as evidence of the care AI developers owe. If that is right, frontier labs that committed to those standards but lack a documented plan to halt unacceptably risky systems are plausibly already breaching a duty of care. The paper then argues that comprehensive development documentation would both shield responsible developers from liability and reduce the chance of catastrophic oversight failures, drawing lessons from nuclear energy, aviation software, healthcare, and cybersecurity. The reason a careful reader should care is that the claim offers an accountability mechanism that works now, without waiting for new AI regulation.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the negligence standard of “reasonable practice” operating through the NIST AI Risk Management Framework's GOVERN 1.3 control and its suggested action GV-1.3-007, which asks developers to devise a plan to halt development or deployment of a general-purpose AI system posing unacceptable negative risk. The historical anchor is the 1932 tugboat case, where a court found negligence despite industry custom because reasonable care required a cheap safety measure. In the paper's use, the framework and the labs' own public commitments supply the content of reasonable care, while the missing halt plans supply the breach; the same logic turns documentation into both a legal shield and a safety tool.

What would settle it

A systematic search of U.S. case law for negligence actions against AI developers would settle the claim: if courts admit the NIST AI RMF as evidence of the standard of care and find liability for a missing halt plan, the argument is supported, while repeated rulings that voluntary frameworks cannot define reasonable care in a novel industry would refute it. A single appellate decision holding that the AI RMF is voluntary and therefore not evidence of the standard of care would be enough.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the boundary between voluntary and mandatory AI governance is weaker than commonly assumed. In U.S. negligence law, courts set the standard of care by what is reasonable, not merely by what the industry customarily does, so voluntary instruments such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and the 2023 White House Voluntary AI Commitments can be admitted as evidence of reasonable practice. Since the NIST Generative AI Profile includes the suggested action GV-1.3-007—devising a plan to halt development or deployment of a general-purpose AI system that poses unacceptable negative risk—and since public evidence indicates many frontier labs have no such plan, the paper concludes those labs may already be in breach of a duty of care. The proposed remedy is documentation: detailed records of risk decisions, capability discoveries, testing, and governance practices that demonstrate due care and make oversight possible.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that U.S. courts will treat the voluntary NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and labs' own public safety commitments, as defining the “reasonable practice” standard of care in negligence, even though NIST labels the framework voluntary and the paper only says “presumably” courts would do so; if courts decline, the claim that labs are already breaching a duty of care collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A frontier lab that has publicly committed to the NIST AI RMF but cannot demonstrate a GV-1.3-007 halt plan may already face negligence exposure under current U.S. tort law.
  • Comprehensive documentation of development decisions, unexpected capabilities, and safety measures should reduce liability exposure and may improve access to insurance and financing.
  • Because systemic risk arises from a model's capabilities rather than a specific deployment, duties of care for frontier models must extend through the development process, not begin at release.
  • A certification program that caps liability for compliant developers, following the Price-Anderson model, could give labs a voluntary but concrete incentive to adopt rigorous safety documentation.
  • Strengthening the NIST AI RMF with governance templates, independent auditing, and pause-and-assess protocols would give courts clearer benchmarks and developers clearer safe harbors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If courts treat voluntary standards as evidence of reasonable care, then other public artifacts—model cards, responsible scaling policies, red-teaming reports—could be used against developers who fail to follow their own stated practices, so a lab's published safety claims may define its legal duty.
  • Because tort liability operates through private lawsuits, this mechanism could survive political shifts that block state AI regulation, turning corporate safety rhetoric into enforceable commitments even under a preemption-friendly federal regime.
  • A testable extension would be an empirical study of whether AI labs with documented halt and pause protocols enjoy lower insurance premiums, faster financing, or fewer post-incident sanctions, which would confirm the paper's claim that documentation is a competitive advantage.
  • The same logic may generalize beyond AI: any company that publicly adopts a voluntary safety framework in an emerging technology could be held to that framework in negligence, making public safety pledges a form of self-regulation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that frontier AI developers already face meaningful tort liability for failing to document and manage systemic risks, because U.S. negligence law measures duty of care by 'reasonable practice' rather than by common practice alone. The authors claim that voluntary frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, together with public commitments by AI labs, can supply evidence of the applicable standard, and they conclude that many labs are 'already breaching at least one duty of care' by lacking a GV-1.3-007 halt plan. To support this, the paper draws lessons from nuclear energy, aviation software, healthcare, and cybersecurity; reviews the EU AI Act and U.S. regulatory developments; and makes stakeholder-specific recommendations for enhanced safety documentation, certification, and liability caps.

Significance. If the central legal claim were established, the paper would be significant: it would convert voluntary AI safety commitments from hortatory statements into concrete sources of legal exposure, identify a specific unmet duty (halt-plan documentation), and propose a policy path that aligns documentation with liability relief. The paper's strengths include its interdisciplinary synthesis, its explicit engagement with differing scholarly strands on safety-case methodology, its concrete recommendations with named stakeholders, and its generally candid discussion of limitations. The authors also acknowledge and address several obvious objections to their proposal. The main weakness is legal: the paper's strongest current-liability conclusion rests on an unproven premise about how U.S. courts would treat voluntary standards, and it omits any analysis of causation and damages. These omissions are load-bearing for the central claim, so the contribution is currently better characterized as prudent risk management under uncertain law than as a settled statement of existing legal exposure.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Section 5] The analysis leaps from duty and breach to liability without analyzing causation or damages. The sentence 'By this account, a company would be liable for any damages that follow from failing to develop such a plan' (Section 4.2) assumes that compensable harm would be traceable to the missing halt plan, but the paper never identifies a concrete plaintiff, a foreseeable injury scenario at training time, or a causal chain connecting the absent GV-1.3-007 documentation to a specific harm. Negligence requires actual harm, but-for causation, and proximate cause, and each of these is especially problematic for systemic AI risks that may materialize through downstream users or deployment choices. Section 5.4 lists limitations of the proposal but does not acknowledge this gap. Without a worked causal-chain analysis, the statement in Section 5 that 'their failure to implement basic safety measures could lead U.S. courts to find negligence under current law' is unsupported; the paper should either supply such an analysis or reframe the conclusion as potential exposure under unsettled law.
  2. [Section 4.2] The central premise that the NIST AI RMF and voluntary commitments define the 'reasonable practice' standard of care is asserted rather than established. The paper says, 'Presumably, practices described in the AI RMF would be considered reasonable' and earlier 'it is safe to assume that frontier AI development furnishes the needs, resources, and capabilities for most or all of the framework to apply.' These are assumptions, not legal arguments. The paper cites The T.J. Hooper for the proposition that custom does not trump reasonable practice, but it provides no case law or doctrinal analysis showing that courts would treat a voluntary NIST framework, issued after a standard-setting process, as evidence of the standard of care in a novel and rapidly changing industry. The thesis that 'voluntary AI standards already carry legal force' depends entirely on this premise, yet the paper does not address competing considerations such as the voluntary nature of the RMF, the lack of an industry consensus on its application to frontier AI, or the reasonableness inquiry for newly emerging technologies. The authors should either marshal supporting authority or soften the claim to 'may be considered' with an explicit analysis of the uncertainty.
  3. [Section 3.1] The nuclear 'chain of causation' analogy is asserted rather than argued. The paper states that nuclear operators maintain liability for harms caused by third parties if they fail to implement adequate security measures, and that '[t]his precedent suggests that AI companies should maintain clear responsibility for downstream harms from their systems, even if misused by others.' Nuclear operator liability of this kind arises in a specific statutory and regulatory context with physical security obligations, safety cases, and defined license conditions; the paper does not explain how these features transfer to general-purpose AI models with open-ended deployment, nor does it show that harms from AI misuse would be foreseeable to a developer at training time. This analogy is used to support the paper's expanded-duty-of-care thesis in Section 5, so the gap is material. The authors should either provide a detailed doctrinal analogy showing how proximate cause would be established for AI developers or explicitly mark this as a recommended policy direction rather than a description of existing law.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'This distinction parallels the nuclear industry's approach discussed in Section 4.1' should refer to Section 3.1, where the nuclear case study actually appears; the cross-reference is incorrect.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'This begs further clarification' should be 'this calls for further clarification' or 'this raises further questions'; 'begs the question' is generally reserved for the logical fallacy.
  3. [Section 4.2] There are typographical issues in the rendering of 'Voluntary AI Commitments' and 'GOVERN 1.3'; these should be corrected in the final version.
  4. [References] The citation for the NIST Generative AI Profile contains an apparent error: the technical report number is listed as 'error: 600-1'. The correct report number should be verified and fixed.
  5. [Introduction and Section 5] The paper oscillates between the claim that voluntary standards 'already carry legal force' (Introduction) and the more modest statement that courts 'may consider' such standards as evidence (Section 5). These formulations should be harmonized so that the central thesis is stated consistently and accurately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central tort-law claim is anchored in external precedent and industry standards, with only peripheral self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that voluntary AI standards such as the NIST AI RMF may carry legal weight through U.S. negligence law, so that failing to implement GV-1.3-007 halt protocols could constitute a breach of care—is an external legal argument, not a closed derivation. It rests on the T.J. Hooper reasonable-practice doctrine, the text of the NIST AI RMF and the White House Voluntary AI Commitments, and case studies from nuclear energy, aviation, healthcare, and cybersecurity. None of these inputs is defined in terms of the paper's conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The word 'Presumably' in Section 4.2 candidly flags the premise that courts will treat AI RMF practices as reasonable; that is an unproven legal assumption, which is a correctness risk rather than circularity. Section 5.4 also acknowledges limitations, including the ex-post character of tort law and international coordination challenges, so the paper does not present its derivation as airtight. Two cited works include co-author Avijit Ghosh (Cattell, Ghosh, and Kaffee 2024; Mitchell et al. 2025), but they support peripheral points about coordinated disclosure and autonomous-agent risk; the negligence argument would stand unchanged without them. Overall, the argument is self-contained relative to external legal authorities and industry standards, with only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters were fitted and no new entities were postulated. The argument rests on the four assumptions above; the most fragile is the treatment of the voluntary NIST AI RMF as the legal standard of care.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Duty of care can be grounded in standards and reasonable practice, not merely common practice.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 2.1 to allow the paper to treat the NIST AI RMF as a plausible negligence benchmark; the tugboat precedent supports this, but does not settle how courts will apply it to AI.
  • domain assumption U.S. courts will treat the voluntary NIST AI Risk Management Framework as evidence of reasonable care for frontier AI development.
    Section 4.2 states 'Presumably, practices described in the AI RMF would be considered reasonable'; this is the load-bearing premise for the breach-of-duty claim.
  • domain assumption Frontier AI models pose systemic, potentially catastrophic risks that emerge during development as well as deployment.
    Adopted from cited risk literature and the EU AI Act's systemic-risk category; the paper does not derive or measure this risk itself.
  • ad hoc to paper Comprehensive safety documentation reduces liability exposure and creates competitive advantages for developers.
    This is the paper's mutual-benefit thesis, supported only by selected case studies and not by comparative data controlling for other factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Catastrophic Liability: Managing Systemic Risks in Frontier AI Development." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGQJ5XZI

@misc{pith2026250500616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Catastrophic Liability: Managing Systemic Risks in Frontier AI Development},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGQJ5XZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00616}
}
read the original abstract

As artificial intelligence systems grow more capable and autonomous, frontier AI development poses potential systemic risks that could affect society at a massive scale. Current practices at many AI labs developing these systems lack sufficient transparency around safety measures, testing procedures, and governance structures. This opacity makes it challenging to verify safety claims or establish appropriate liability when harm occurs. Drawing on liability frameworks from nuclear energy, aviation software, cybersecurity, and healthcare, we propose a comprehensive approach to safety documentation and accountability in frontier AI development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of key recommendations. Each key stakeholder can advance their interests while assisting the others. from comprehensive safety documentation (Section 5, also see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. PASTA: A Scalable Framework for Multi-Policy AI Compliance Evaluation

    cs.HC 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PASTA is a model-card-based LLM pipeline that evaluates an AI system against five regulations in minutes for about $3, with expert-aligned violation and relevance scores.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    119th Congress. 2025. One Big Beautiful Bill Act

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Abid Ali Awan . 2023. Introduction to Safetensors . Section: Originals

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Abraham, K. S. 2009. Custom, Noncustomary Practice , and Negligence . Colum. L. Rev., 109: 1784. Publisher: HeinOnline

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Al-Kharusi, Y.; Khan, A.; Rizwan, M.; and Bait-Suwailam, M. M. 2024. Open-Source Artificial Intelligence Privacy and Security: A Review. Computers, 13(12): 311

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Andrews, C. 2025. European Commission withdraws AI Liability Directive from consideration

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    M.; He, J.; Hind, M.; Garces-Erice, L.; Giblin, C.; Giurgiu, I.; Martino, J.; Nair, R.; et al

    Bagehorn, F.; Brimijoin, K.; Daly, E. M.; He, J.; Hind, M.; Garces-Erice, L.; Giblin, C.; Giurgiu, I.; Martino, J.; Nair, R.; et al. 2025. AI Risk Atlas: Taxonomy and Tooling for Navigating AI Risks and Resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05780

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Barnett, P.; and Thiergart, L. 2024. What AI evaluations for preventing catastrophic risks can and cannot do. arXiv:2412.08653

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Baum, S. D. 2025. Assessing the risk of takeover catastrophe from large language models. Risk Analysis, 45(4): 752--765

    work page 2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    N.; Zhang, Y.-Q.; Xue, L.; Shalev-Shwartz, S.; et al

    Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G.; Yao, A.; Song, D.; Abbeel, P.; Darrell, T.; Harari, Y. N.; Zhang, Y.-Q.; Xue, L.; Shalev-Shwartz, S.; et al. 2024. Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress. Science, 384(6698): 842--845

    2024

  2. [10]

    d.; Robinson, J.; Ferrandis, C

    BigCode; Hughes, S.; Vries, H. d.; Robinson, J.; Ferrandis, C. M.; Allal, L. B.; Werra, L. v.; Ding, J.; Paquet, S.; and Jernite, Y. 2023. The BigCode Project Governance Card . ArXiv:2312.03872 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bounds, A. 2020. Implementation of nuclear safety cases. In Safety and Reliability, volume 39, No. 3-4, 203--214. Taylor & Francis

    2020

  4. [12]

    Boykis, V. 2024. GGUF , the long way around. Section: blog

    2024

  5. [13]

    D.; Sett, G.; Koessler, L.; Schuett, J.; and Anderljung, M

    Buhl, M. D.; Sett, G.; Koessler, L.; Schuett, J.; and Anderljung, M. 2024. Safety cases for frontier AI. arXiv:2410.21572

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Casper, S.; Ezell, C.; Siegmann, C.; Kolt, N.; Curtis, T. L.; Bucknall, B.; Haupt, A.; Wei, K.; Scheurer, J.; Hobbhahn, M.; Sharkey, L.; Krishna, S.; Von Hagen, M.; Alberti, S.; Chan, A.; Sun, Q.; Gerovitch, M.; Bau, D.; Tegmark, M.; Krueger, D.; and Hadfield-Menell, D. 2024. ...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Cattell, S.; Ghosh, A.; and Kaffee, L.-A. 2024. Coordinated Flaw Disclosure for AI : Beyond Security Vulnerabilities . Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 7(1): 267--280

    2024

  8. [16]

    Center for AI Safety . 2023. Statement on AI Risk

    2023

  9. [17]

    K.; and Rauhut, K

    Decker, D. K.; and Rauhut, K. 2021. Incentivizing Good Governance Beyond Regulatory Minimums : The Civil Nuclear Sector . Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy, 2(2): 19--43. Publisher: Wiley Online Library

    2021

  10. [18]

    The T . J . Hooper

    Epstein, R. A. 1992. The Path to " The T . J . Hooper ": The Theory and History of Custom in the Law of Tort . The Journal of Legal Studies, 21(1): 1--38. Publisher: [University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Law School]

    1992

  11. [19]

    European Commission , D. 2022. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting non-contractual civil liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive). Proposal for a directive 52022PC0496, European Commission, Brussels. 202...

    2022

  12. [20]

    European Parliament, C. o. t. E. U. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/85...

    2024

  13. [21]

    European Union Aviation Safety Agency . 2023. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ROADMAP 2.0

    2023

  14. [22]

    Federal Aviation Administration . 2021. A Brief History of the FAA

    2021

  15. [23]

    Federal Aviation Administration . 2023. Roadmap for AI Safety Assurance. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Goudarzi, S. 2024. AI and the A -bomb: What the analogy captures and misses

    2024

  17. [25]

    Habli, I.; Hawkins, R.; Paterson, C.; Ryan, P.; Jia, Y.; Sujan, M.; and McDermid, J. 2025. The BIG Argument for AI Safety Cases. arXiv:2503.11705

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    D.; Korbak, T.; and Irving, G

    Hilton, B.; Buhl, M. D.; Korbak, T.; and Irving, G. 2025. Safety Cases: A Scalable Approach to Frontier AI Safety. arXiv:2503.04744

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hofmann, H. C. 2020. Between Discretion and Proportionality : The Duty of Care in EU Judicial Review . SSRN Electronic Journal

    2020

  20. [28]

    Holt, M. 2024. Price- Anderson Act : Nuclear Power Industry Liability Limits and Compensation to the Public After Radioactive Releases . CRS Report IF10821, Congressional Research Service

    2024

  21. [29]

    House, W. 2023. FACT SHEET : Biden - Harris administration secures voluntary commitments from leading artificial intelligence companies to manage the risks posed by AI . The White House

    2023

  22. [30]

    M.; Maxwell, T.; Cheng, N.; et al

    Hubinger, E.; Denison, C.; Mu, J.; Lambert, M.; Tong, M.; MacDiarmid, M.; Lanham, T.; Ziegler, D. M.; Maxwell, T.; Cheng, N.; et al. 2024. Sleeper agents: Training deceptive llms that persist through safety training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05566

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    ISO. 2023. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 --- Information technology---Artificial intelligence---Management system . Geneva: ISO

    2023

  24. [32]

    Juraku, K.; and Sugawara, S.-E. 2021. Structural Ignorance of Expertise in Nuclear Safety Controversies : Case Analysis of Post - Fukushima Japan . Nuclear Technology, 207(9): 1423--1441

    2021

  25. [33]

    Kapoor, S. 2025. AGI is not a milestone

    2025

  26. [34]

    Koessler, P.; and Schuett, F. 2023. Assessing and Reducing Catastrophic Risks from Frontier AI . https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08823. ArXiv:2307.08823

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kreps, S.; and Kriner, D. 2023. How AI threatens democracy. Journal of Democracy, 34(4): 122--131

    2023

  28. [36]

    Leveson, N. G. 2011. The use of safety cases in certification and regulation. ESD Working Papers

    2011

  29. [37]

    Matthews, D. 2023. AI is supposedly the new nuclear weapons — but how similar are they, really?

    2023

  30. [38]

    Meinke, A.; Schoen, B.; Scheurer, J.; Balesni, M.; Shah, R.; and Hobbhahn, M. 2025. Frontier Models are Capable of In -context Scheming . ArXiv:2412.04984 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    M.; and Guha, N

    Mello, M. M.; and Guha, N. 2024. Understanding Liability Risk from Using Health Care Artificial Intelligence Tools . New England Journal of Medicine, 390(3): 271--278

    2024

  32. [40]

    Merwe, M. v. d.; Ramakrishnan, K.; and Anderljung, M. 2024. Tort Law and Frontier AI Governance . Lawfare. Publisher: Lawfare

    2024

  33. [41]

    S.; and Pistilli, G

    Mitchell, M.; Ghosh, A.; Luccioni, A. S.; and Pistilli, G. 2025. Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed . ArXiv:2502.02649 [cs]

    2025

  34. [42]

    Murray, M. 2025. AI Risk Management Can Learn a Lot From Other Industries . AI Frontiers, 9 April 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology . 2023. AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) . https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/nist.ai.100-1.pdf. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST

    2023

  36. [44]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (US) . 2024. Artificial intelligence risk management framework : generative artificial intelligence profile. Technical Report error: 600-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD

    2024

  37. [45]

    Novelli, C.; Gaur, A.; and Floridi, L. 2025. Two Futures of AI Regulation under the Trump Administration. Available at SSRN

    2025

  38. [46]

    NTIA . 2024. Dual- Use Foundation Models with Widely Available Model Weights . Technical report, National Telecommunications and Information Administration

    2024

  39. [47]

    Pan, X.; Dai, J.; Fan, Y.; Luo, M.; Li, C.; and Yang, M. 2025. Large language model-powered AI systems achieve self-replication with no human intervention. arXiv:2503.17378

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A.; Moon, A.; and Rostamzadeh, N

    Rismani, S.; Shelby, R.; Smart, A.; Jatho, E.; Kroll, J. A.; Moon, A.; and Rostamzadeh, N. 2023. From Plane Crashes to Algorithmic Harm: Applicability of Safety Engineering Frameworks for Responsible ML . In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2023

  41. [49]

    Sidhpurwala, H.; Mollett, G.; Fox, E.; Bestavros, M.; and Chen, H. 2024. Building Trust: Foundations of Security, Safety and Transparency in AI. arXiv:2411.12275

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sivaram, U. 2025. US AI Policy Pivots Sharply From ‘ Safety ’ To ‘ Security ’. Section: AI

    2025

  43. [51]

    K.; Grundy, E

    Slattery, P.; Saeri, A. K.; Grundy, E. A. C.; Graham, J.; Noetel, M.; Uuk, R.; Dao, J.; Pour, S.; Casper, S.; and Thompson, N. 2024. The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review, Database, and Taxonomy of Risks From Artificial Intelligence. arXiv:2408.12622

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Srikumar, M.; Chang, J.; and Chmielinski, K. 2024. Risk Mitigation Strategies for the Open Foundation Model Value Chain. Technical report, Research report. Partnership on AI. https://partnershiponai. org/resource …

    2024

  45. [53]

    Stein-Perlman, Z. 2024. Deployment

    2024

  46. [54]

    Stix, C.; Pistillo, M.; Sastry, G.; Hobbhahn, M.; Ortega, A.; Balesni, M.; Hallensleben, A.; Goldowsky-Dill, N.; and Sharkey, L. 2025. AI Behind Closed Doors: a Primer on The Governance of Internal Deployment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12170

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Symphony Solutions . 2024. The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Aviation: Transforming the Skies

    2024

  48. [56]

    Tabassi, E. 2023. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework ( AI RMF 1.0). Technical Report NIST AI 100-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), Gaithersburg, MD

    2023

  49. [57]

    M.; and Bergen, B

    Taylor, S. M.; and Bergen, B. K. 2025. Do Large Language Models Exhibit Spontaneous Rational Deception ? Version Number: 1

    2025

  50. [58]

    Walter, Y. 2024. The rapid competitive economy of machine learning development: a discussion on the social risks and benefits. AI and Ethics, 4(2): 635--648

    2024

  51. [59]

    Y.; Abdelmonsef, A.; Varghese, S.; and Hors, A

    White, M.; Haddad, I.; Osborne, C.; Liu, X.-Y. Y.; Abdelmonsef, A.; Varghese, S.; and Hors, A. L. 2024. The Model Openness Framework: Promoting Completeness and Openness for Reproducibility, Transparency, and Usability in Artificial Intelligence. arXiv:2403.13784

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Yu, Z.; Liu, X.; Liang, S.; Cameron, Z.; Xiao, C.; and Zhang, N. 2024. Don't listen to me: understanding and exploring jailbreak prompts of large language models. In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), 4675--4692

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.