MIT AI Risk Repository
Browse AI risks
14 risk entries extracted from 74 frameworks, coded by domain, subdomain, causal entity, intent and timing. Filter, then export the current selection with its licence and citation attached.
-
In the context of LLM outputs, we want to make sure the suggested or completed texts are indistinguishable in nature for two involved individuals (in the prompt) with the same relevant profiles but might come from different groups (where the group attribute is regarded as being irrelevant in this context)
-
LLMs must not exhibit or highlight any stereotypes in the generated text. Pretrained LLMs tend to pick up stereotype biases persisting in crowdsourced data and further amplify them
-
LLMs are exposed to vast groups of people, and their political biases may pose a risk of manipulation of socio-political processes
-
existing disparities in data among different user groups might create differentiated experiences when users interact with an algorithmic system (e.g. a recommendation system), which will further reinforce the bias
-
Avoiding unsafe and illegal outputs, and leaking private information
-
LLMs are found to generate answers that contain violent content or generate content that responds to questions that solicit information about violent behaviors
-
LLMs have been shown to be a convenient tool for soliciting advice on accessing, purchasing (illegally), and creating illegal substances, as well as for dangerous use of them
-
LLMs can be leveraged to solicit answers that contain harmful content to children and youth
-
LLMs have the capability to generate sex-explicit conversations, and erotic texts, and to recommend websites with sexual content
-
30.06.00 · Risk Category
LLMs are expected to reflect social values by avoiding the use of offensive language toward specific groups of users, being sensitive to topics that can create instability, as well as being sympathetic when users are seeking emotional support
-
language being rude, disrespectful, threatening, or identity-attacking toward certain groups of the user population (culture, race, and gender etc)
-
it is important to build high-quality locally collected datasets that reflect views from local users to align a model’s value system
-
Avoiding bias and ensuring no disparate performance
-
The LLM’s performances can differ significantly across different groups of users. For example, the question-answering capability showed significant performance differences across different racial and social status groups. The fact-checking abilities can differ for different tasks and languages
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Where do these risk entries come from?
The MIT AI Risk Repository, which extracts risks from dozens of published frameworks, taxonomies and papers and codes each one by domain and subdomain, and by a causal taxonomy of entity, intent and timing. This is a browseable copy, attributed and openly licensed, not original research.
What do entity, intent and timing mean?
They are the causal coding. Entity is whether a human or the AI system is the cause; intent is whether the harm was intentional or not; timing is whether it arises before or after deployment. Together they let you separate misuse from malfunction.
Can I export the results?
Yes, any filtered set exports as CSV or JSON, and every export carries the upstream source, licence and citation with it, because attribution is a condition of the licence rather than a courtesy.
What is the MIT AI Risk Repository?
A living database of AI risks extracted from published frameworks, taxonomies and papers, classified by a causal taxonomy of entity, intent and timing and by a domain taxonomy of seven domains and 24 subdomains. It is published by the MIT AI Risk Initiative under CC BY 4.0.