Deepika Raman

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.

Deepika Raman, Nada Madkour, Evan R. Murphy et al.

Frontier AI models -- highly capable foundation models at the cutting edge of AI development -- may pose severe risks to public safety, human rights, economic stability, and societal value in the coming years. These risks could arise from deliberate adversarial misuse, system failures, unintended cascading effects, or simultaneous failures across multiple models. In response to such risks, at the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, 16 global AI industry organizations signed the Frontier AI Safety Commitments, and 27 nations and the EU issued a declaration on their intent to define these thresholds. To fulfill these commitments, organizations must determine and disclose ``thresholds at which severe risks posed by a model or system, unless adequately mitigated, would be deemed intolerable.'' To assist in setting and operationalizing intolerable risk thresholds, we outline key principles and considerations; for example, to aim for ``good, not perfect'' thresholds in the face of limited data on rapidly advancing AI capabilities and consequently evolving risks. We also propose specific threshold recommendations, including some detailed case studies, for a subset of risks across eight risk categories: (1) Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Weapons, (2) Cyber Attacks, (3) Model Autonomy, (4) Persuasion and Manipulation, (5) Deception, (6) Toxicity, (7) Discrimination, and (8) Socioeconomic Disruption. Our goal is to serve as a starting point or supplementary resource for policymakers and industry leaders, encouraging proactive risk management that prioritizes preventing intolerable risks (ex ante) rather than merely mitigating them after they occur (ex post).

Anthony M. Barrett, Jessica Newman, Brandie Nonnecke et al.

Increasingly multi-purpose AI models, such as cutting-edge large language models or other 'general-purpose AI' (GPAI) models, 'foundation models,' generative AI models, and 'frontier models' (typically all referred to hereafter with the umbrella term 'GPAI/foundation models' except where greater specificity is needed), can provide many beneficial capabilities but also risks of adverse events with profound consequences. This document provides risk-management practices or controls for identifying, analyzing, and mitigating risks of GPAI/foundation models. We intend this document primarily for developers of large-scale, state-of-the-art GPAI/foundation models; others that can benefit from this guidance include downstream developers of end-use applications that build on a GPAI/foundation model. This document facilitates conformity with or use of leading AI risk management-related standards, adapting and building on the generic voluntary guidance in the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 23894, with a focus on the unique issues faced by developers of GPAI/foundation models.