Wendy Bickersteth

Megan Li, Wendy Bickersteth, Ningjing Tang et al.

Due to its general-purpose nature, Generative AI is applied in an ever-growing set of domains and tasks, leading to an expanding set of risks of harm impacting people, communities, society, and the environment. These risks may arise due to failures during the design and development of the technology, as well as during its release, deployment, or downstream usages and appropriations of its outputs. In this paper, building on prior taxonomies of AI risks, harms, and failures, we construct a taxonomy specifically for Generative AI failures and map them to the harms they precipitate. Through a systematic analysis of 499 publicly reported incidents, we describe what harms are reported, how they arose, and who they impact. We report the prevalence of each type of harm, underlying failure mode, and harmed stakeholder, as well as their common co-occurrences. We find that most reported incidents are caused by use-related issues but bring harm to parties beyond the end user(s) of the Generative AI system at fault, and that the landscape of Generative AI harms is distinct from that of traditional AI. Our work offers actionable insights to policymakers, developers, and Generative AI users. In particular, we call for the prioritization of non-technical risk and harm mitigation strategies, including public disclosures and education and careful regulatory stances.

Megan Li, Wendy Bickersteth, Ningjing Tang et al.

Despite growing concerns about the risks of Generative AI (GenAI), there is limited understanding of public perceptions of these risks and their associated failure modes -- defined as recurring patterns of sociotechnical breakdown across the GenAI lifecycle that contribute to risks of real-world harm. To address this gap, we present a survey instrument, validated with eight subject matter experts and deployed on a sample of 960 U.S.-based participants, to assess awareness and perceptions of GenAI's failure modes, their associated risks, and stakeholder responsibilities to address them. To support realism and content validity, our instrument is structured around scenarios grounded in publicly reported incidents and a taxonomy of GenAI's failure modes. Findings suggest that our instrument is (1) effective for assessing risk awareness and perceptions in a way that is grounded in people's current contexts of use, yet is extensible to new contexts that will inevitably arise; and (2) potentially useful for informing the design of AI literacy tools and interventions. We argue for AI literacy and governance approaches that align with how people encounter and reason about GenAI in everyday life.