A position paper mapping traditional critical systems engineering to AI safety frameworks and advocating Assurance 2.0-style cases, broader boundaries, and explicit risk tolerability.
Toward a formalism for conservative claims about the dependability of software-based systems
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
citation-role summary
background 1
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CY 1years
2025 1verdicts
ACCEPT 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Where AI Assurance Might Go Wrong: Initial lessons from engineering of critical systems
A position paper mapping traditional critical systems engineering to AI safety frameworks and advocating Assurance 2.0-style cases, broader boundaries, and explicit risk tolerability.