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.
-
"These harms include harms to physical integrity, mental health and well-being. When interacting with vulnerable users, AI assistants may reinforce users’ distorted beliefs or exacerbate their emotional distress. AI assistants may even convince users to harm themselves, for example by convincing users to engage in actions such as adopting unhealthy dietary or exercise habits or taking their own lives. At the societal level, assistants that target users with content promoting hate speech, discriminatory beliefs or violent ideologies, may reinforce extremist views or provide users with guidance
-
24.05.00 · Risk Category
"Although unlikely to cause harm in isolation, anthropomorphic perceptions of advanced AI assistants may pave the way for downstream harms on individual and societal levels. We document observed or likely individual level harms of interacting with highly anthropomorphic AI assistants, as well as the potential larger-scale, societal implications of allowing such technologies to proliferate without restriction. "
-
"Anthropomorphic AI assistant behaviours that promote emotional trust and encourage information sharing, implicitly or explicitly, may inadvertently increase a user’s susceptibility to privacy concerns (see Chapter 13). If lulled into feelings of safety in interactions with a trusted, human-like AI assistant, users may unintentionally relinquish their private data to a corporation, organisation or unknown actor. Once shared, access to the data may not be capable of being withdrawn, and in some cases, the act of sharing personal information can result in a loss of control over one’s own data. P
-
"A user who trusts and emotionally depends on an anthropomorphic AI assistant may grant it excessive influence over their beliefs and actions (see Chapter 9). For example, users may feel compelled to endorse the expressed views of a beloved AI companion or might defer decisions to their highly trusted AI assistant entirely (see Chapters 12 and 16). Some hold that transferring this much deliberative power to AI compromises a user’s ability to give, revoke or amend consent. Indeed, even if the AI, or the developers behind it, had no intention to manipulate the user into a certain course of actio
-
"Users who have faith in an AI assistant’s emotional and interpersonal abilities may feel empowered to broach topics that are deeply personal and sensitive, such as their mental health concerns. This is the premise for the many proposals to employ conversational AI as a source of emotional support (Meng and Dai, 2021), with suggestions of embedding AI in psychotherapeutic applications beginning to surface (Fiske et al., 2019; see also Chapter 11). However, disclosures related to mental health require a sensitive, and oftentimes professional, approach – an approach that AI can mimic most of the
-
"Users may experience severely violated expectations when interacting with an entity that convincingly performs affect and social conventions but is ultimately unfeeling and unpredictable. Emboldened by the human-likeness of conversational AI assistants, users may expect it to perform a familiar social role, like companionship or partnership. Yet even the most convincingly human-like of AI may succumb to the inherent limitations of its architecture, occasionally generating unexpected or nonsensical material in its interactions with users. When these exclamations undermine the expectations user
-
"Perceiving an AI assistant’s expressed feelings as genuine, as a result of interacting with a ‘companion’ AI that freely uses and reciprocates emotional language, may result in users developing a sense of responsibility over the AI assistant’s ‘well-being,’ suffering adverse outcomes – like guilt and remorse – when they are unable to meet the AI’s purported needs (Laestadius et al., 2022). This erroneous belief may lead to users sacrificing time, resources and emotional labour to meet needs that are not real. Over time, this feeling may become the root cause for the compulsive need to ‘check
-
"People may choose to build connections with human-like AI assistants over other humans, leading to a degradation of social connections between humans and a potential ‘retreat from the real’. The prevailing view that relationships with anthropomorphic AI are formed out of necessity – due to a lack of real-life social connections, for example (Skjuve et al., 2021) – is challenged by the possibility that users may indicate a preference for interactions with AI, citing factors such as accessibility (Merrill et al., 2022), customisability (Eriksson, 2022) and absence of judgement (Brandtzaeg et al
-
"As more opportunities for interpersonal connection are replaced by AI alternatives, humans may find themselves socially unfulfilled by human–AI interaction, leading to mass dissatisfaction that may escalate to epidemic proportions (Turkle, 2018). Social connection is an essential human need, and humans feel most fulfilled when their connections with others are genuinely reciprocal. While anthropomorphic AI assistants can be made to be convincingly emotive, some have deemed the function of social AI as parasitic, in that it ‘exploits and feeds upon processes. . . that evolved for purposes that
-
24.06.03 · Risk Sub-Category
Exploiting emotional dependence on AI assistants
"There is increasing evidence of the ways in which AI tools can interfere with users’ behaviours, interests, preferences, beliefs and values. For example, AI-mediated communication (e.g. smart replies integrated in emails) influence senders to write more positive responses and receivers to perceive them as more cooperative (Mieczkowski et al., 2021); writing assistant LLMs that have been primed to be biased in favour of or against a contested topic can influence users’ opinions on that topic (Jakesch et al., 2023a; see Chapter 9); and recommender systems have been used to influence voting choi
-
"The the risks that uncalibrated trust may generate in the context of user–assistant relationships"
-
"We use the term competence trust to refer to users’ trust that AI assistants have the capability to do what they are supposed to do (and that they will not do what they are not expected to, such as exhibiting undesirable behaviour). Users may come to have undue trust in the competencies of AI assistants in part due to marketing strategies and technology press that tend to inflate claims about AI capabilities (Narayanan, 2021; Raji et al., 2022a). Moreover, evidence shows that more autonomous systems (i.e. systems operating independently from human direction) tend to be perceived as more compe
-
"Users may develop alignment trust in AI assistants, understood as the belief that assistants have good intentions towards them and act in alignment with their interests and values, as a result of emotional or cognitive processes (McAllister, 1995). Evidence from empirical studies on emotional trust in AI (Kaplan et al., 2023) suggests that AI assistants’ increasingly realistic human-like features and behaviours are likely to inspire users’ perceptions of friendliness, liking and a sense of familiarity towards their assistants, thus encouraging users to develop emotional ties with the technolo
-
"Advanced AI assistants may make users more susceptible to misinformation, as people develop competence trust in these systems’ abilities and uncritically turn to them as reliable sources of information."
Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.