{"attribution":{"source":"MIT AI Risk Repository, Domain Taxonomy of AI Risks v1 (MIT AI Risk Initiative)","license":"CC BY 4.0","license_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","citation":"Slattery, P., Saeri, A. K., Grundy, E. A. C., Graham, J., Noetel, M., Uuk, R., Dao, J., Pour, S., Casper, S., & Thompson, N. (2025). The AI Risk Repository: A comprehensive meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence. arXiv:2408.12622."},"exported_at":"2026-09-11"}
{"rows":[{"ev_id":"24.01.00","quick_ref":"Gabriel2024","paper_title":"The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants","level":"Risk Category","risk_category":"Capability failures","risk_subcategory":null,"description":"\"One reason AI systems fail is because they lack the capability or skill needed to do what they are asked to do.\"","entity":"AI","intent":"Unintentional","timing":"Other","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.3"},{"ev_id":"24.01.01","quick_ref":"Gabriel2024","paper_title":"The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants","level":"Risk Sub-Category","risk_category":"Capability failures","risk_subcategory":"Lack of capability for task","description":"\"As we have seen, this could be due to the skill not being required during the training process (perhaps due to issues with the training data) or because the learnt skill was quite brittle and was not generalisable to a new situation (lack of robustness to distributional shift). In particular, advanced AI assistants may not have the capability to represent complex concepts that are pertinent to their own ethical impact, for example the concept of 'benefitting the user' or 'when the user asks' or representing 'the way in which a user expects to be benefitted'.\"","entity":"AI","intent":"Unintentional","timing":"Pre-deployment","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.3"},{"ev_id":"24.01.03","quick_ref":"Gabriel2024","paper_title":"The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants","level":"Risk Sub-Category","risk_category":"Capability failures","risk_subcategory":"Safe exploration problem with widely deployed AI assistants","description":"\"Moreover, we can expect assistants – that are widely deployed and deeply embedded across a range of social contexts – to encounter the safe exploration problem referenced above Amodei et al. (2016). For example, new users may have different requirements that need to be explored, or widespread AI assistants may change the way we live, thus leading to a change in our use cases for them (see Chapters 14 and 15). To learn what to do in these new situations, the assistants may need to take exploratory actions. This could be unsafe, for example a medical AI assistant when encountering a new disease","entity":"AI","intent":"Unintentional","timing":"Post-deployment","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.3"},{"ev_id":"24.02.01","quick_ref":"Gabriel2024","paper_title":"The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants","level":"Risk Sub-Category","risk_category":"Goal-related failures","risk_subcategory":"Misaligned consequentialist reasoning","description":"\"As we think about even more intelligent and advanced AI assistants, perhaps outperforming humans on many cognitive tasks, the question of how humans can successfully control such an assistant looms large. To achieve the goals we set for an assistant, it is possible (Shah, 2022) that the AI assistant will implement some form of consequentialist reasoning: considering many different plans, predicting their consequences and executing the plan that does best according to some metric, M. This kind of reasoning can arise because it is a broadly useful capability (e.g. planning ahead, considering mo","entity":"AI","intent":"Other","timing":"Pre-deployment","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.3"}]}