Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Risk thresholds for frontier AI

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 2406.14713 v1 pith:6VTJ44CL submitted 2024-06-20 cs.CY

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

Frontier artificial intelligence (AI) systems could pose increasing risks to public safety and security. But what level of risk is acceptable? One increasingly popular approach is to define capability thresholds, which describe AI capabilities beyond which an AI system is deemed to pose too much risk. A more direct approach is to define risk thresholds that simply state how much risk would be too much. For instance, they might state that the likelihood of cybercriminals using an AI system to cause X amount of economic damage must not increase by more than Y percentage points. The main upside of risk thresholds is that they are more principled than capability thresholds, but the main downside is that they are more difficult to evaluate reliably. For this reason, we currently recommend that companies (1) define risk thresholds to provide a principled foundation for their decision-making, (2) use these risk thresholds to help set capability thresholds, and then (3) primarily rely on capability thresholds to make their decisions. Regulators should also explore the area because, ultimately, they are the most legitimate actors to define risk thresholds. If AI risk estimates become more reliable, risk thresholds should arguably play an increasingly direct role in decision-making.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Harmonizing AI Safety Thresholds

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors propose harmonized AI capability floors: non-zero full-chain TLO cyber completion triggers safeguards, and AI progress at 5× trend for 3 months triggers safeguards, with biorisk left as a diagnostic.

  2. Technical Requirements for Halting Dangerous AI Activities

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A taxonomy of compute-centric technical interventions, graded by readiness and mapped to five AI governance plans, argues that halting dangerous AI requires substantial control over AI compute.

  3. Robustness tests for biomedical foundation models should tailor to specifications

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes task-tailored 'robustness specifications' to guide robustness testing of biomedical foundation models across their lifecycle.

Pith tools