Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Typology of Risks of Generative Text-to-Image Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2307.05543 v1 pith:5YNZ6ERE submitted 2023-07-08 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords risksmodelstext-to-imagedevelopmentgapsgenerativeissuesoffer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the direct risks and harms associated with modern text-to-image generative models, such as DALL-E and Midjourney, through a comprehensive literature review. While these models offer unprecedented capabilities for generating images, their development and use introduce new types of risk that require careful consideration. Our review reveals significant knowledge gaps concerning the understanding and treatment of these risks despite some already being addressed. We offer a taxonomy of risks across six key stakeholder groups, inclusive of unexplored issues, and suggest future research directions. We identify 22 distinct risk types, spanning issues from data bias to malicious use. The investigation presented here is intended to enhance the ongoing discourse on responsible model development and deployment. By highlighting previously overlooked risks and gaps, it aims to shape subsequent research and governance initiatives, guiding them toward the responsible, secure, and ethically conscious evolution of text-to-image models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward Effective AI Governance: A Review of Principles

    cs.SE 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A rapid tertiary review of nine AI governance reviews finds a focus on high-level frameworks and principles, with little concrete guidance on governance mechanisms.

Pith tools