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.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 12m read
 · 
Economic growth is a unique field, because it is relevant to both the global development side of EA and the AI side of EA. Global development policy can be informed by models that offer helpful diagnostics into the drivers of growth, while growth models can also inform us about how AI progress will affect society. My friend asked me to create a growth theory reading list for an average EA who is interested in applying growth theory to EA concerns. This is my list. (It's shorter and more balanced between AI/GHD than this list) I hope it helps anyone who wants to dig into growth questions themselves. These papers require a fair amount of mathematical maturity. If you don't feel confident about your math, I encourage you to start with Jones 2016 to get a really strong grounding in the facts of growth, with some explanations in words for how growth economists think about fitting them into theories. Basics of growth These two papers cover the foundations of growth theory. They aren't strictly essential for understanding the other papers, but they're helpful and likely where you should start if you have no background in growth. Jones 2016 Sociologically, growth theory is all about finding facts that beg to be explained. For half a century, growth theory was almost singularly oriented around explaining the "Kaldor facts" of growth. These facts organize what theories are entertained, even though they cannot actually validate a theory – after all, a totally incorrect theory could arrive at the right answer by chance. In this way, growth theorists are engaged in detective work; they try to piece together the stories that make sense given the facts, making leaps when they have to. This places the facts of growth squarely in the center of theorizing, and Jones 2016 is the most comprehensive treatment of those facts, with accessible descriptions of how growth models try to represent those facts. You will notice that I recommend more than a few papers by Chad Jones in this
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achieve 25% on its Frontier Math
Omnizoid
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Edit 1/29: Funding is back, baby!  Crossposted from my blog.   (This could end up being the most important thing I’ve ever written. Please like and restack it—if you have a big blog, please write about it). A mother holds her sick baby to her chest. She knows he doesn’t have long to live. She hears him coughing—those body-wracking coughs—that expel mucus and phlegm, leaving him desperately gasping for air. He is just a few months old. And yet that’s how old he will be when he dies. The aforementioned scene is likely to become increasingly common in the coming years. Fortunately, there is still hope. Trump recently signed an executive order shutting off almost all foreign aid. Most terrifyingly, this included shutting off the PEPFAR program—the single most successful foreign aid program in my lifetime. PEPFAR provides treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS—it has saved about 25 million people since its implementation in 2001, despite only taking less than 0.1% of the federal budget. Every single day that it is operative, PEPFAR supports: > * More than 222,000 people on treatment in the program collecting ARVs to stay healthy; > * More than 224,000 HIV tests, newly diagnosing 4,374 people with HIV – 10% of whom are pregnant women attending antenatal clinic visits; > * Services for 17,695 orphans and vulnerable children impacted by HIV; > * 7,163 cervical cancer screenings, newly diagnosing 363 women with cervical cancer or pre-cancerous lesions, and treating 324 women with positive cervical cancer results; > * Care and support for 3,618 women experiencing gender-based violence, including 779 women who experienced sexual violence. The most important thing PEPFAR does is provide life-saving anti-retroviral treatments to millions of victims of HIV. More than 20 million people living with HIV globally depend on daily anti-retrovirals, including over half a million children. These children, facing a deadly illness in desperately poor countries, are now going