{"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":"2026-09-12"}
{"rows":[{"ev_id":"09.06.01","quick_ref":"Meek2016","paper_title":"Managing the ethical and risk implications of rapid advances in artificial intelligence: A literature review","level":"Risk Sub-Category","risk_category":"AI rights and responsibilities","risk_subcategory":"AI rights and responsibilities","description":"\"We note literature—which gives us the domain termed Robot Rights—addressing the rights of the AI itself as we develop and implement it. We find arguments against [38] the affordance of rights for artificial agents: that they should be equals in ability but not in rights, that they should be inferior by design and expendable when needed, and that since they can be designed not to feel pain (or anything) they do not have the same rights as humans. On a more theoretical level, we find literature asking more fundamental questions, such as: at what point is a simulation of life (e.g. artificial in","entity":"AI","intent":"Other","timing":"Other","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.5"},{"ev_id":"09.06.03","quick_ref":"Meek2016","paper_title":"Managing the ethical and risk implications of rapid advances in artificial intelligence: A literature review","level":"Risk Sub-Category","risk_category":"AI death","risk_subcategory":"AI death","description":"\"The literature suggests that throughout the development of an AI we may go through several generations of agents which do not perform as expected [37] [43]. In this case, such agents may be placed into a suspended state, terminated, or deleted. Further, we could propose scenarios where research funding for a facility running such agents is exhausted, resulting in the inadvertent termination of a project. In these cases, is deletion or termination of AI programs (the moral patient) by a moral agent an act of murder? This, an example of Robot Ethics, raises issues of personhood which parallel r","entity":"Human","intent":"Other","timing":"Other","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.5"},{"ev_id":"61.01.08","quick_ref":"Uuk2025","paper_title":"A Taxonomy of Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AI ","level":"Risk Sub-Category","risk_category":"Types of systemic risks from general-purpose AI","risk_subcategory":"Harms to non-humans ","description":"\"Large-scale harms to animals and the development of AI capable of suffering.\"","entity":"Human","intent":"Unintentional","timing":"Post-deployment","domain":7,"subdomain":"7.5"}]}