Ian W. Eisenberg

Amin Rasekh, Ian Eisenberg

Natural language generation models are computer systems that generate coherent language when prompted with a sequence of words as context. Despite their ubiquity and many beneficial applications, language generation models also have the potential to inflict social harms by generating discriminatory language, hateful speech, profane content, and other harmful material. Ethical assessment of these models is therefore critical. But it is also a challenging task, requiring an expertise in several specialized domains, such as computational linguistics and social justice. While significant strides have been made by the research community in this domain, accessibility of such ethical assessments to the wider population is limited due to the high entry barriers. This article introduces a new tool to democratize and standardize ethical assessment of natural language generation models: Tool for Ethical Assessment of Language generation models (TEAL), a component of Credo AI Lens, an open-source assessment framework.

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.

Eli Sherman, Ian W. Eisenberg

As AI systems' sophistication and proliferation have increased, awareness of the risks has grown proportionally (Sorkin et al. 2023). In response, calls have grown for stronger emphasis on disclosure and transparency in the AI industry (NTIA 2023; OpenAI 2023b), with proposals ranging from standardizing use of technical disclosures, like model cards (Mitchell et al. 2019), to yet-unspecified licensing regimes (Sindhu 2023). Since the AI value chain is complicated, with actors representing various expertise, perspectives, and values, it is crucial that consumers of a transparency disclosure be able to understand the risks of the AI system the disclosure concerns. In this paper we propose a risk profiling standard which can guide downstream decision-making, including triaging further risk assessment, informing procurement and deployment, and directing regulatory frameworks. The standard is built on our proposed taxonomy of AI risks, which reflects a high-level categorization of the wide variety of risks proposed in the literature. We outline the myriad data sources needed to construct informative Risk Profiles and propose a template-based methodology for collating risk information into a standard, yet flexible, structure. We apply this methodology to a number of prominent AI systems using publicly available information. To conclude, we discuss design decisions for the profiles and future work.