Research / Sources
Research preprints from the scientific community. arxiv.org
A World Internet Conference report reviewing global AI safety governance practices and proposing a UN-centred international framework with institutional and policy recommendations.
A 2026 report from China's WIC AI committee reviewing frontier AI risks, global governance practices, readiness gaps, and proposing coordinated governance mechanisms.
Argues that frontier AI makes recursive self-improvement plausible, that no clear frameworks predict its outcomes, and offers a game-theoretic analysis of whether to start RSI when rivals might too.
Proposes a framework decomposing agent impact into intelligence, knowledge and control pathways, uses NK-landscape simulations of fast takeoff, and argues governance should restrict control and knowledge rather than intelligence.
Interview-based STS and Black Feminist Technoscience analysis of Canada's AI governance infrastructure, examining expertise politics, strategic ignorance, and accountability for AI harms.
Argues that a US-China race to AGI creates three dangers, including loss of control to superintelligent agents, and that both countries should prioritise AI safety and avoid provoking the race.
Argues that full value alignment of autonomous robots is theoretically and practically impossible, and proposes shifting from maximising alignment to defining conditions under which residual misalignment is acceptable, with normative requirements and a framework.
Argues that human control over frontier AI is lost through organisational delegation and proposes checkable measures: named accountable persons, supervisors with stop authority, and published build-versus-check clocks.
Develops a non-operational failure-mode framework for how advanced AI could cause extinction or permanent disempowerment via misalignment, human misuse, organizational failure and competitive deployment, without requiring intent.
A review essay of Maas's framework for global AI governance, arguing that institutional design depends on power distribution, especially among states and the few companies making frontier AI decisions.
Proposes an ex-ante governance framework (SAGE-X) for frontier AI with deterministic tripwires and a Moral Check Index, grounded in a PRISMA review of 130 empirical studies on evaluator confidence and guardrail decay.
Analyses 684 U.S. federal AI governance documents against 24 AI risks and 14 sectors, comparing coverage with expert vulnerability ratings to surface governance gaps, such as finance and healthcare being under-covered.
Analyzes how AI persuasion could undermine human control over AI development, oversight and containment, develops five scenarios, a risk-assessment blueprint, and a small expert survey showing divided opinions.
Argues AI development organizations are prone to drifting toward failure, drawing parallels from Challenger, Three Mile Island, and Boeing 737 MAX to contemporary AI safety processes.
Proposes a structured framework of behavioral indicators, metrics and thresholds for monitoring AI systems' progression toward catastrophic risk, to support evidence-based policy monitoring protocols.
Workshop-based review of quantitative risk modeling methods for societal risks from advanced AI, comparing proposals and setting a structured agenda of open problems for AI governance.
Argues non-great-power conflict could be a major catastrophic risk channel for advanced AI, testing pathways via war escalation, terrorism and AI loss of control, and identifies shared intermediate variables.
Proposes a framework linking STPA hazard analysis, component testing and system modelling to trace LLM trading manipulation into financial-system harms, showing adversarial inputs can increase bank failures and contagion.
Presents a stylized model of how AI safety should split resources between character shaping (RLHF, constitutional AI) and inference-time rule enforcement as deployment scales, finding character fragility dominates the optimal balance.
Critiques gradual AI existential-risk scenarios for neglecting social mechanisms like mobilisation, lock-in and reactance, and proposes distinguishing technological from social singularity.
A systematization of knowledge that proposes a five-dimensional framework for how frontier AI reshapes security risk in critical infrastructure, and sets a system-level assurance research agenda.
Position paper arguing LM-enabled strategic wargames need auditable safety cases before informing military decisions, identifying five failure modes and using wargames as stress tests.
Analyses African governments' AI policy statements and national strategies, finding strong focus on AI opportunities but comparatively little attention to AI safety risks.
Proposes a conceptualisation of systemic AI risks as complex externalities and collective action problems, covering emergence, market concentration, cascading risks and governance gaps, with relevance to EU AI Act systemic-risk rules.
Surveys 1,250 arXiv papers on AI self-improvement, proposing a taxonomy and a verification hierarchy for self-evaluators, and argues that governance-grade measurement of recursive self-improvement is underdeveloped.
A systematic review of emerging literature on agentic AI governance that identifies what distinguishes agentic systems, governance priorities, proposed mechanisms and stakeholder roles.
Proposes a macro-prudential early warning and response system for internal frontier AI, borrowing Basel III ideas such as buffer metrics and clearinghouse reporting to detect correlated sector-wide risk build-ups.
Proposes a six-component conceptual model for strategic red teaming as a board-level governance tool that tests the assumptions behind AI-enabled strategic decisions, without empirical validation.
A field-wide prioritized agenda for AI security, drawn from expert interviews and a workshop, covering frontier system protection, policy, technical assurance, and governing agentic AI under adversarial pressure.
Surveys existing international agreements and proposes how conditions for relaxing limits on frontier AI development should be set, recommending a time-limited framework with an oversight organization and withdrawal option.
Argues that AI power-seeking and confrontation incentives depend on an Earth-centred view, and that a credible off-Earth autonomy pathway with early cooperation could reduce confrontation and support oversight.
A multi-sectoral participatory futures workshop on responsible openness in foundation models, documenting co-created visions, action pathways, and four tensions between openness purposes, scope, and governance.
A three-round Delphi study of 272 AI experts rates 24 AI risks by severity, catastrophic probability, vulnerability and responsibility, finding dangerous capabilities and weapons most concerning.
Proposes a formal engineering framework for governance under AGI-driven decision velocity, with a phenomenological coordination law, a provenance taxonomy, and a proposed grant-review trial.
Proposes a taxonomy and framework for responding to catastrophic AI loss-of-control incidents, distinguishing costly from impossible recovery and accidental from adversarial cases, with severity-based response guidance.
Position paper arguing AI safety should address AI Lock-In, where over-reliance on AI causes human deskilling and systemic fragility at individual, societal and national levels, and proposes mitigations.
Conceptual paper that defines control via goal-setting and goal-getting, then analyses how AI can contribute to loss of control and what maintains it, including sub-superintelligent scenarios.
Argues that AGI could emerge around 2030-2040 and reshape geopolitics, finds Europe under-prepared on frontier AI awareness, compute and policy, and proposes a coordinated European preparedness agenda.
Position paper proposing Positive Alignment, an agenda for AI systems that actively support human and ecological flourishing while staying safe, with technical directions across the LLM lifecycle and polycentric governance principles.
Forecasts how agentic AI compresses cyber attack lifecycles, using the Copy Fail Linux incident as a case study, and proposes a 2026-2028 risk model and prioritized enterprise defense roadmap.