Tomas Bueno Momcilovic

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.

Tomas Bueno Momcilovic, Barbara Gallina, Ingmar Kessler et al.

Assurance cases (ACs) are a common artifact for building and maintaining confidence in system properties such as safety or robustness. Constructing an AC can be challenging, although existing tools provide support in static, document-centric applications and methods for dynamic contexts (e.g., autonomous driving) are emerging. Unfortunately, managing ACs remains a challenge, since maintaining the embedded knowledge in the face of changes requires substantial effort, in the process deterring developers - or worse, producing poorly managed cases that instill false confidence. To address this, we present OntoGSN: an ontology and supporting middleware for managing ACs in the Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) standard. OntoGSN offers a knowledge representation and a queryable graph that can be automatically populated, evaluated, and updated. Our contributions include: a 1:1 formalization of the GSN Community Standard v3 in an OWL ontology with SWRL rules; a helper ontology and parser for integration with a widely used AC tool; a repository and documentation of design decisions for OntoGSN maintenance; a SPARQL query library with automation patterns; and a prototypical interface. The ontology strictly adheres to the standard's text and has been evaluated according to FAIR principles, the OOPS framework, competency questions, and community feedback. The development of other middleware elements is guided by the community needs and subject to ongoing evaluations. To demonstrate the utility of our contributions, we illustrate dynamic AC management in an example involving assurance of adversarial robustness in large language models.