Richard Mallah

Marta Ziosi, Miro Plueckebaum, Stephen Casper et al.

Frontier AI both amplifies existing risks and introduces qualitatively novel challenges. Not only is there a notable lack of stable scientific consensus resulting from the rapid pace of technological change, but emerging frontier AI safety practices are often misaligned with, or may undermine, established risk management frameworks. To address these challenges, we systematically surface open problems in frontier AI risk management. Adopting a problem-oriented approach, we examine each stage of the risk management process - risk planning, identification, analysis, evaluation, and mitigation - through a structured review of the literature, identifying unresolved challenges and the actors best positioned to address them. Recognising that different types of open problems call for different responses, we classify open problems according to whether they reflect (a) a lack of scientific or technical consensus, (b) misalignment with, or challenges to, established risk management frameworks, or (c) shortcomings in implementation despite apparent consensus and alignment. By mapping these open problems and identifying the actors best positioned to address them - including developers, deployers, regulators, standards bodies, researchers, and third-party evaluators - this work aims to clarify where progress is needed to enable robust and meaningful consensus on frontier AI risk management.The paper does not propose specific solutions; instead, it provides a problem-oriented, agenda-setting reference document, complemented by a living online repository, intended to support coordination, reduce duplication, and guide future research and governance efforts.

Yoshua Bengio, Tegan Maharaj, Luke Ong et al. · cmu, mila

Rapidly improving AI capabilities and autonomy hold significant promise of transformation, but are also driving vigorous debate on how to ensure that AI is safe, i.e., trustworthy, reliable, and secure. Building a trusted ecosystem is therefore essential -- it helps people embrace AI with confidence and gives maximal space for innovation while avoiding backlash. The "2025 Singapore Conference on AI (SCAI): International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety" aimed to support research in this space by bringing together AI scientists across geographies to identify and synthesise research priorities in AI safety. This resulting report builds on the International AI Safety Report chaired by Yoshua Bengio and backed by 33 governments. By adopting a defence-in-depth model, this report organises AI safety research domains into three types: challenges with creating trustworthy AI systems (Development), challenges with evaluating their risks (Assessment), and challenges with monitoring and intervening after deployment (Control).

Anna Katariina Wisakanto, Joe Rogero, Avyay M. Casheekar et al.

Modern general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems present an urgent risk management challenge, as their rapidly evolving capabilities and potential for catastrophic harm outpace our ability to reliably assess their risks. Current methods often rely on selective testing and undocumented assumptions about risk priorities, frequently failing to make a serious attempt at assessing the set of pathways through which AI systems pose direct or indirect risks to society and the biosphere. This paper introduces the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for AI framework, adapting established PRA techniques from high-reliability industries (e.g., nuclear power, aerospace) for the new challenges of advanced AI. The framework guides assessors in identifying potential risks, estimating likelihood and severity bands, and explicitly documenting evidence, underlying assumptions, and analyses at appropriate granularities. The framework's implementation tool synthesizes the results into a risk report card with aggregated risk estimates from all assessed risks. It introduces three methodological advances: (1) Aspect-oriented hazard analysis provides systematic hazard coverage guided by a first-principles taxonomy of AI system aspects (e.g. capabilities, domain knowledge, affordances); (2) Risk pathway modeling analyzes causal chains from system aspects to societal impacts using bidirectional analysis and incorporating prospective techniques; and (3) Uncertainty management employs scenario decomposition, reference scales, and explicit tracing protocols to structure credible projections with novelty or limited data. Additionally, the framework harmonizes diverse assessment methods by integrating evidence into comparable, quantified absolute risk estimates for lifecycle decisions. We have implemented this as a workbook tool for AI developers, evaluators, and regulators.

Giulio Corsi, Kyle Kilian, Richard Mallah

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies presents profound challenges to societal safety. As AI systems become more capable, accessible, and integrated into critical services, the dual nature of their potential is increasingly clear. While AI can enhance defensive capabilities in areas like threat detection, risk assessment, and automated security operations, it also presents avenues for malicious exploitation and large-scale societal harm, for example through automated influence operations and cyber attacks. Understanding the dynamics that shape AI's capacity to both cause harm and enhance protective measures is essential for informed decision-making regarding the deployment, use, and integration of advanced AI systems. This paper builds on recent work on offense-defense dynamics within the realm of AI, proposing a taxonomy to map and examine the key factors that influence whether AI systems predominantly pose threats or offer protective benefits to society. By establishing a shared terminology and conceptual foundation for analyzing these interactions, this work seeks to facilitate further research and discourse in this critical area.