Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Risk assessment at AGI companies: A review of popular risk assessment techniques from other safety-critical industries

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 2307.08823 v1 pith:FXN5VMCC submitted 2023-07-17 cs.CY

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

Companies like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic have the stated goal of building artificial general intelligence (AGI) - AI systems that perform as well as or better than humans on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. However, there are increasing concerns that AGI would pose catastrophic risks. In light of this, AGI companies need to drastically improve their risk management practices. To support such efforts, this paper reviews popular risk assessment techniques from other safety-critical industries and suggests ways in which AGI companies could use them to assess catastrophic risks from AI. The paper discusses three risk identification techniques (scenario analysis, fishbone method, and risk typologies and taxonomies), five risk analysis techniques (causal mapping, Delphi technique, cross-impact analysis, bow tie analysis, and system-theoretic process analysis), and two risk evaluation techniques (checklists and risk matrices). For each of them, the paper explains how they work, suggests ways in which AGI companies could use them, discusses their benefits and limitations, and makes recommendations. Finally, the paper discusses when to conduct risk assessments, when to use which technique, and how to use any of them. The reviewed techniques will be obvious to risk management professionals in other industries. And they will not be sufficient to assess catastrophic risks from AI. However, AGI companies should not skip the straightforward step of reviewing best practices from other industries.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Systematic Hazard Analysis for Frontier AI using STPA

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Applying STPA to the AI Control scenario produces structured unsafe control actions and loss scenarios, supporting an argument that systematic hazard analysis can improve frontier AI safety assurance.

  2. Developing a Risk Identification Framework for Foundation Model Uses

    cs.CR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper derives four design requirements for use-based foundation model risk identification and presents an initial questionnaire-based framework demonstrated on a visitor-center chatbot example.

Pith tools