Anna Neumann

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.

Anna Neumann, Elisabeth Kirsten, Muhammad Bilal Zafar et al.

System prompts in Large Language Models (LLMs) are predefined directives that guide model behaviour, taking precedence over user inputs in text processing and generation. LLM deployers increasingly use them to ensure consistent responses across contexts. While model providers set a foundation of system prompts, deployers and third-party developers can append additional prompts without visibility into others' additions, while this layered implementation remains entirely hidden from end-users. As system prompts become more complex, they can directly or indirectly introduce unaccounted for side effects. This lack of transparency raises fundamental questions about how the position of information in different directives shapes model outputs. As such, this work examines how the placement of information affects model behaviour. To this end, we compare how models process demographic information in system versus user prompts across six commercially available LLMs and 50 demographic groups. Our analysis reveals significant biases, manifesting in differences in user representation and decision-making scenarios. Since these variations stem from inaccessible and opaque system-level configurations, they risk representational, allocative and potential other biases and downstream harms beyond the user's ability to detect or correct. Our findings draw attention to these critical issues, which have the potential to perpetuate harms if left unexamined. Further, we argue that system prompt analysis must be incorporated into AI auditing processes, particularly as customisable system prompts become increasingly prevalent in commercial AI deployments.