Security practices in AI development
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
What makes safety claims about general purpose AI systems such as large language models trustworthy? We show that rather than the capabilities of security tools such as alignment and red teaming procedures, it is security practices based on these tools that contributed to reconfiguring the image of AI safety and made the claims acceptable. After showing what causes the gap between the capabilities of security tools and the desired safety guarantees, we critically investigate how AI security practices attempt to fill the gap and identify several shortcomings in diversity and participation. We found that these security practices are part of securitization processes aiming to support (commercial) development of general purpose AI systems whose trustworthiness can only be imperfectly tested instead of guaranteed. We conclude by offering several improvements to the current AI security practices.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 17 May 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024AI Risk Management Should Incorporate Both Safety and Security
- 2026Don't Make Models Guess Security and Safety: Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific AI Agents
- 2024Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems
- 2026The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
- 2026What Matters For Safety Alignment?
- 2025A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems
- 2024Security of AI Agents
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion