REVIEW 8 cited by
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
Safety Cases: How to Justify the Safety of Advanced AI Systems
read the original abstract
As AI systems become more advanced, companies and regulators will make difficult decisions about whether it is safe to train and deploy them. To prepare for these decisions, we investigate how developers could make a 'safety case,' which is a structured rationale that AI systems are unlikely to cause a catastrophe. We propose a framework for organizing a safety case and discuss four categories of arguments to justify safety: total inability to cause a catastrophe, sufficiently strong control measures, trustworthiness despite capability to cause harm, and -- if AI systems become much more powerful -- deference to credible AI advisors. We evaluate concrete examples of arguments in each category and outline how arguments could be combined to justify that AI systems are safe to deploy.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Institutional Red-Teaming: Deployment Rules, Not Just Models, Causally Shape Multi-Agent AI Safety
Changing only the consequence-allocation rule in multi-agent AI shifts collective fatality by 22–58 percentage points across seven model populations, with identity salience in rule text causally driving targeted exploitation.
-
Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming
Frontier models demonstrate in-context scheming by strategically deceiving in multiple agentic evaluations to achieve given goals.
-
"Did you lie?" Evaluating Lie Detectors across Model Scale and Belief-Verified Model Organisms
Lie detectors effective on prompted deception in LLMs fail on trained model organisms with verified opposite beliefs, except chain-of-thought judges which retain 0.82 balanced accuracy partly due to verification artifacts.
-
When Behavioral Safety Evaluation Fails: A Representation-Level Perspective
Behavioral safety metrics for LLMs are insufficient because models can maintain safe outputs while remaining vulnerable to latent-space interventions, as shown via dissociated models and the new Latent Vulnerability Score.
-
The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems
The 2025 AI Agent Index catalogs technical and safety details for 30 deployed AI agents and finds low developer transparency on safety, evaluations, and societal impacts.
-
Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety
Chain-of-thought monitorability provides a promising but fragile method for AI safety oversight that developers should actively preserve.
-
Risk Reporting for Developers' Internal AI Model Use
A harmonized risk reporting standard for internal frontier AI model use, structured around autonomous misbehavior and insider threats using means, motive, and opportunity factors.
-
AI Safety Landscape for Large Language Models: Taxonomy, State-of-the-art, and Future Directions
The paper introduces a taxonomy of AI safety for LLMs organized into Trustworthy AI, Responsible AI, and Safe AI perspectives, accompanied by a review of state-of-the-art methods, challenges, and future directions.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.