Nicholas Kruus

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.

Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Christina Q. Knight, Nicholas Kruus et al.

Large language models (LLMs) perform increasingly well on biology benchmarks, but it remains unclear whether they uplift novice users -- i.e., enable humans to perform better than with internet-only resources. This uncertainty is central to understanding both scientific acceleration and dual-use risk. We conducted a multi-model, multi-benchmark human uplift study comparing novices with LLM access versus internet-only access across eight biosecurity-relevant task sets. Participants worked on complex problems with ample time (up to 13 hours for the most involved tasks). We found that LLM access provided substantial uplift: novices with LLMs were 4.16 times more accurate than controls (95% CI [2.63, 6.87]). On four benchmarks with available expert baselines (internet-only), novices with LLMs outperformed experts on three of them. Perhaps surprisingly, standalone LLMs often exceeded LLM-assisted novices, indicating that users were not eliciting the strongest available contributions from the LLMs. Most participants (89.6%) reported little difficulty obtaining dual-use-relevant information despite safeguards. Overall, LLMs substantially uplift novices on biological tasks previously reserved for trained practitioners, underscoring the need for sustained, interactive uplift evaluations alongside traditional benchmarks.