MIT AI Risk Repository
Browse AI risks
4 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.
-
"Ethical challenges are widely discussed in the literature and are at the heart of the debate on how to govern and regulate AI technology in the future (Bostrom & Yudkowsky, 2014; IEEE, 2017; Wirtz et al., 2019). Lin et al. (2008, p. 25) formulate the problem as follows: “there is no clear task specification for general moral behavior, nor is there a single answer to the question of whose morality or what morality should be implemented in AI”. Ethical behavior mostly depends on an underlying value system. When AI systems interact in a public environment and influence citizens, they are expecte
-
"AI rulemaking for humans can be the result of the decision process of an AI system when the information computed is used to restrict or direct human behavior. The decision process of AI is rational and depends on the baseline programming. Without the access to emotions or a consciousness, decisions of an AI algorithm might be good to reach a certain specified goal, but might have unintended consequences for the humans involved (Banerjee et al., 2017)."
-
"Compatibility of machine and human value judgment refers to the challenge whether human values can be globally implemented into learning AI systems without the risk of developing an own or even divergent value system to govern their behavior and possibly become harmful to humans."
-
"Moral dilemmas can occur in situations where an AI system has to choose between two possible actions that are both conflicting with moral or ethical values. Rule systems can be implemented into the AI program, but it cannot be ensured that these rules are not altered by the learning processes, unless AI systems are programed with a “slave morality” (Lin et al., 2008, p. 32), obeying rules at all cost, which in turn may also have negative effects and hinder the autonomy of the AI system."
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.