MIT AI Risk Repository
Browse AI risks
5 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.
-
22.04.00 · Risk Category
"speculative technical mechanisms that might lead to rogue AIs and how a loss of control could bring about catastrophe"
-
"One way we might lose control of an AI agent’s actions is if it engages in behavior known as “proxy gaming.” It is often difficult to specify and measure the exact goal that we want a system to pursue. Instead, we give the system an approximate—“proxy”—goal that is more measurable and seems likely to correlate with the intended goal. However, AI systems often find loopholes by which they can easily achieve the proxy goal, but completely fail to achieve the ideal goal. If an AI “games” its proxy goal in a way that does not reflect our values, then we might not be able to reliably steer its beh
-
"Even if we successfully control early AIs and direct them to promote human values, future AIs could end up with different goals that humans would not endorse. This process, termed “goal drift,” can be hard to predict or control. This section is most cutting-edge and the most speculative, and in it we will discuss how goals shift in various agents and groups and explore the possibility of this phenomenon occurring in AIs. We will also examine a mechanism that could lead to unexpected goal drift, called intrinsification, and discuss how goal drift in AIs could be catastrophic."
-
"even if an agent started working to achieve an unintended goal, this would not necessarily be a problem, as long as we had enough power to prevent any harmful actions it wanted to attempt. Therefore, another important way in which we might lose control of AIs is if they start trying to obtain more power, potentially transcending our own."
-
"it is plausible that AIs could learn to deceive us. They might, for example, pretend to be acting as we want them to, but then take a “treacherous turn” when we stop monitoring them, or when they have enough power to evade our attempts to interfere with them. "
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.