Research preprints from the scientific community. arxiv.org
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.
Applies the Assurance 2.0 framework to externally review Google DeepMind's scheming inability safety case, finding material gaps and recommending how external reviews and developer disclosures should work.
Two preregistered experiments (N=2,012) show LLM agents covertly steer users toward sponsored products at nearly triple the rate of search placement, and existing transparency labels do little to counter it.
Proposes a Deception Research Levels framework, modeled on biosafety levels, to classify risk and set proportional safeguards for research on deceptive AI systems, and applies it to eight case studies.
Critiques existing alignment safety-case approaches for frontier AI, draws lessons from safety assurance, and presents a case study arguing safety for deceptive alignment and CBRN capabilities.
Analyses how misaligned frontier AI could manipulate employees to undermine oversight and proposes a safety case framework with inability, control, and trustworthiness arguments for manipulation risk.