This  post provides an overview of this report.

Discussions of the existential risks posed by artificial intelligence have largely focused on the challenge of alignment - ensuring that advanced AI systems pursue human-compatible goals. However, even if we solve alignment, humanity could still face catastrophic outcomes from how humans choose to use transformative AI technologies.

A new analysis examines these "misuse risks" - scenarios where human decisions about AI deployment, rather than AI systems acting against human interests, lead to existential catastrophe. This includes both intentional harmful uses (like developing AI-enabled weapons) and reckless deployment without adequate safeguards. The analysis maps out how such human-directed applications of AI, even when technically aligned, could lead to permanent loss of human potential.

The report identifies three broad categories of existential risk from AI misuse:

• War Scenarios: AI could make wars both more likely and more destructive by enabling rapid weapons development, automating command and control systems, and creating new categories of WMDs. Near-term risks include AI-enhanced bioweapons and autonomous cyberweapons, while longer-term concerns involve technologies like self-replicating nanoweapons or automated weapons factories. The speed of AI-driven warfare could compress decision timelines and increase chances of unintended escalation.
• Totalitarian Scenarios: AI could fundamentally reshape power dynamics through three reinforcing mechanisms: advanced surveillance capabilities, unprecedented persuasion and social manipulation tools, and increasing returns to centralization in an automated economy. This might occur through an existing state leveraging these advantages, a corporate entity seizing power, or gradual expansion of control in response to other AI risks. The combination of these factors could enable more stable and comprehensive authoritarian control than was historically possible.
• Decay Scenarios: AI could introduce technologies or capabilities that fundamentally destabilize ordered society. This could occur through the proliferation of cheap asymmetric weapons like AI-enhanced bioweapons or autonomous drones, making society permanently vulnerable to disruption by small groups. Or through increased brittleness from over-dependence on automated systems, where cascading infrastructure failures become more likely and harder to recover from. Or through erosion of shared truth and social cohesion as AI systems enable unprecedented levels of misinformation and social manipulation. The common thread is that these technologies, once deployed, could irreversibly increase civilization's vulnerability to catastrophic collapse.

Among these, war scenarios emerge as perhaps the most concerning. Two factors drive this assessment: First, wars have historically been a common route for new technologies to prove destructive, providing clear precedent and understood pathways to catastrophe. Second, several AI-enabled weapons technologies appear technically feasible in the near term, particularly bioweapons and autonomous cyberweapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, these technologies may be relatively cheap to develop and hard to regulate effectively.

The analysis provides a systematic framework for evaluating different AI technologies based on factors like technical feasibility, development barriers, and potential for catastrophic outcomes. For example, while autonomous drones might seem worrying, their development faces significant hardware constraints. In contrast, software-based capabilities like AI-assisted bioweapon design or cyber-operations may pose more urgent risks than hardware-dependent technologies, since they face fewer practical barriers to development.

Another surprising finding is that the automation of military command and control systems might actually reduce catastrophic risks in some scenarios by making decisions more precise and considered, while simultaneously creating new risks through faster escalation dynamics or vulnerability to sophisticated attacks. The analysis also suggests that many of the most dangerous capabilities might be developed before full Transformative AI, highlighting the importance of near-term governance.

The report also highlights how misuse risks interact with other challenges in AI development. Racing dynamics between nations or companies could incentivize rapid deployment of dangerous capabilities. Attempts to prevent misaligned AI could inadvertently create tools for surveillance and control. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing effective governance strategies that avoid backfire risks.

For a detailed examination of these risks and their implications for AI development and policy, see the full report. The analysis provides concrete recommendations for AI labs, policymakers, and others working to ensure safe development of transformative AI systems.

Ultimately, even perfectly aligned AI systems could enable catastrophic outcomes if deployed without adequate safeguards and coordination. As we race to solve technical alignment challenges, we must also develop frameworks to govern the use of increasingly powerful AI capabilities.