What Is AI Safety? What Do We Want It to Be?
Jacqueline Harding, Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini

TL;DR
This paper defends a simple, inclusive conception of AI safety focused on harm prevention, arguing it aligns with the field's core and counters trends emphasizing catastrophic risks and engineering approaches.
Contribution
It advocates for the Safety Conception of AI safety, emphasizing its normative and descriptive advantages over other prevalent perspectives.
Findings
The Safety Conception unifies diverse AI safety topics.
It supports a harm-based, non-arbitrary approach to AI safety.
Counteracts the trend of focusing solely on catastrophic risks.
Abstract
The field of AI safety seeks to prevent or reduce the harms caused by AI systems. A simple and appealing account of what is distinctive of AI safety as a field holds that this feature is constitutive: a research project falls within the purview of AI safety just in case it aims to prevent or reduce the harms caused by AI systems. Call this appealingly simple account The Safety Conception of AI safety. Despite its simplicity and appeal, we argue that The Safety Conception is in tension with at least two trends in the ways AI safety researchers and organizations think and talk about AI safety: first, a tendency to characterize the goal of AI safety research in terms of catastrophic risks from future systems; second, the increasingly popular idea that AI safety can be thought of as a branch of safety engineering. Adopting the methodology of conceptual engineering, we argue that these…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsEthics and Social Impacts of AI
