REVIEW 3 cited by
The BIG Argument for AI Safety Cases
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
We present our Balanced, Integrated and Grounded (BIG) argument for assuring the safety of AI systems. The BIG argument adopts a whole-system approach to constructing a safety case for AI systems of varying capability, autonomy and criticality. Firstly, it is balanced by addressing safety alongside other critical ethical issues such as privacy and equity, acknowledging complexities and trade-offs in the broader societal impact of AI. Secondly, it is integrated by bringing together the social, ethical and technical aspects of safety assurance in a way that is traceable and accountable. Thirdly, it is grounded in long-established safety norms and practices, such as being sensitive to context and maintaining risk proportionality. Whether the AI capability is narrow and constrained or general-purpose and powered by a frontier or foundational model, the BIG argument insists on a systematic treatment of safety. Further, it places a particular focus on the novel hazardous behaviours emerging from the advanced capabilities of frontier AI models and the open contexts in which they are rapidly being deployed. These complex issues are considered within a wider AI safety case, approaching assurance from both technical and sociotechnical perspectives. Examples illustrating the use of the BIG argument are provided throughout the paper.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Safety Case Patterns for VLA-based driving systems: Insights from SimLingo
RAISE supplies reusable Reject-Instruction and Accept-Adequate-Instructions patterns plus an extended HARA that includes safe events, enabling structured safety cases for VLA driving systems, shown on SimLingo.
-
The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
AI safety should be measured by whether deployed systems keep errors visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable across five integrity layers, not only by whether individual model outputs look safe.
-
EvoXplain: When Machine Learning Models Agree on Predictions but Disagree on Why -- Measuring Mechanistic Multiplicity Across Training Runs
EvoXplain shows that machine-learning models with equal accuracy can fall into distinct explanation groups, but its own data table contradicts the claimed separation.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.