mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AI Safety: Necessary, but insufficient and possibly problematic

arXiv 2403.17419 ↗First posted 26 Mar 2024cs.AI cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This article critically examines the recent hype around AI safety. We first start with noting the nature of the AI safety hype as being dominated by governments and corporations, and contrast it with other avenues within AI research on advancing social good. We consider what 'AI safety' actually means, and outline the dominant concepts that the digital footprint of AI safety aligns with. We posit that AI safety has a nuanced and uneasy relationship with transparency and other allied notions associated with societal good, indicating that it is an insufficient notion if the goal is that of societal good in a broad sense. We note that the AI safety debate has already influenced some regulatory efforts in AI, perhaps in not so desirable directions. We also share our concerns on how AI safety may normalize AI that advances structural harm through providing exploitative and harmful AI with a veneer of safety.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 7 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2024.

Builds on

2 of 7 references.

References · 2

  1. 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 729
  2. 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 263

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.

1 paper.