Aurelie Bugeau

Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel et al.

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

Coloma Ballester, Aurelie Bugeau, Samuel Hurault et al.

Image inpainting refers to the restoration of an image with missing regions in a way that is not detectable by the observer. The inpainting regions can be of any size and shape. This is an ill-posed inverse problem that does not have a unique solution. In this work, we focus on learning-based image completion methods for multiple and diverse inpainting which goal is to provide a set of distinct solutions for a given damaged image. These methods capitalize on the probabilistic nature of certain generative models to sample various solutions that coherently restore the missing content. Along the chapter, we will analyze the underlying theory and analyze the recent proposals for multiple inpainting. To investigate the pros and cons of each method, we present quantitative and qualitative comparisons, on common datasets, regarding both the quality and the diversity of the set of inpainted solutions. Our analysis allows us to identify the most successful generative strategies in both inpainting quality and inpainting diversity. This task is closely related to the learning of an accurate probability distribution of images. Depending on the dataset in use, the challenges that entail the training of such a model will be discussed through the analysis.