The AI Risk Repository: A Comprehensive Meta-Review, Database, and Taxonomy of Risks From Artificial Intelligence

Overview

• The paper addresses the lack of a shared understanding of AI risks, which can hinder our ability to discuss, research, and respond to them.
• It introduces an AI Risk Repository - a comprehensive database of 777 AI risks extracted from 43 taxonomies.
• The repository is organized using two overarching taxonomies: a Causal Taxonomy and a Domain Taxonomy.

Plain English Explanation

The paper tackles the issue of AI risks - the potential harms or unintended consequences that can arise from the development and use of artificial intelligence. Despite the growing concern over these risks, the authors note that there is a lack of a common understanding or framework for categorizing and discussing them. This can make it challenging for academics, policymakers, AI companies, and the public to have a cohesive dialogue and take coordinated action.

To address this gap, the researchers have created an AI Risk Repository - a comprehensive database of 777 identified AI risks. This repository is organized using two main taxonomies or classification systems:

1. Causal Taxonomy: This taxonomy looks at the root causes of AI risks, categorizing them based on whether the risk is caused by a human or an AI system, whether it was intentional or unintentional, and whether it occurred before or after the deployment of the AI system.

2. Domain Taxonomy: This taxonomy groups the risks into seven main domains: discrimination and toxicity, privacy and security, misinformation, malicious actors and misuse, human-computer interaction, socioeconomic and environmental impacts, and AI system safety, failures, and limitations. These domains are further divided into 23 subdomains.

By creating this centralized and structured repository of AI risks, the researchers hope to provide a common frame of reference that can facilitate more coordinated, coherent, and comprehensive efforts to define, audit, and manage the potential threats posed by artificial intelligence.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted a systematic review of existing taxonomies and other structured classifications of AI risks, compiling a comprehensive database of 777 unique risks extracted from 43 source materials. They then developed two overarching taxonomies to organize these risks:

1. Causal Taxonomy of AI Risks: This taxonomy categorizes each risk based on three causal factors:

   • Entity: Whether the risk is caused by a human or an AI system
   • Intentionality: Whether the risk was intentional or unintentional
   • Timing: Whether the risk occurred before or after the deployment of the AI system

2. Domain Taxonomy of AI Risks: This taxonomy groups the risks into seven high-level domains:

   • Discrimination & Toxicity
   • Privacy & Security
   • Misinformation
   • Malicious Actors & Misuse
   • Human-Computer Interaction
   • Socioeconomic & Environmental
   • AI System Safety, Failures, & Limitations

These domains are further divided into 23 subdomains to provide a more granular classification of the risks.

The researchers used a "best-fit framework synthesis" approach to develop these taxonomies, iteratively refining them based on expert consultations. The resulting AI Risk Repository is designed to be publicly accessible, extensible, and categorized, providing a foundation for more coordinated efforts to define, audit, and manage AI risks.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to categorizing the risks posed by artificial intelligence. The authors acknowledge that the field of AI risk is rapidly evolving, and they have designed the repository to be dynamic and extensible, allowing for updates and additions as new risks emerge.

One potential limitation of the study is the reliance on existing taxonomies and the potential for biases or gaps in the source materials. The authors note that their expert consultation process was intended to address this, but it would be valuable to see ongoing efforts to validate and refine the taxonomies based on feedback from a broader range of stakeholders.

Additionally, while the paper provides a solid foundation for understanding AI risks, it does not delve into the specific strategies or best practices for mitigating or managing these risks. Further research and guidance in this area would be a valuable complement to the risk repository.

Overall, the AI Risk Repository represents an important step towards a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to understanding and addressing the potential harms of artificial intelligence. By providing a common frame of reference, it can help facilitate more productive discussions and collaborative efforts among academics, policymakers, AI companies, and the public.

Conclusion

This paper introduces a novel AI Risk Repository - a comprehensive database of 777 AI risks organized using two overarching taxonomies. By creating a shared understanding and framework for categorizing these risks, the researchers aim to support more coordinated, coherent, and complete efforts to define, audit, and manage the potential threats posed by artificial intelligence. While the paper acknowledges the need for ongoing refinement and validation, it provides a valuable foundation for advancing the critical dialogue around AI risk and responsibility.