Pith. sign in

REVIEW

AI Safety: Necessary, but insufficient and possibly problematic

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 2403.17419 v1 pith:QBJG4B4C submitted 2024-03-26 cs.AI cs.CY

classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords safetygoodhypeinsufficientothersocietalactuallyadvances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

This article critically examines the recent hype around AI safety. We first start with noting the nature of the AI safety hype as being dominated by governments and corporations, and contrast it with other avenues within AI research on advancing social good. We consider what 'AI safety' actually means, and outline the dominant concepts that the digital footprint of AI safety aligns with. We posit that AI safety has a nuanced and uneasy relationship with transparency and other allied notions associated with societal good, indicating that it is an insufficient notion if the goal is that of societal good in a broad sense. We note that the AI safety debate has already influenced some regulatory efforts in AI, perhaps in not so desirable directions. We also share our concerns on how AI safety may normalize AI that advances structural harm through providing exploitative and harmful AI with a veneer of safety.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools