AI Concerns

Map/D22/22.3

III · D22 · 22.3

Red-teaming standards

Uneven across labs.

Catastrophic · 5PlausibleMidRisk 10

Severity

5/5

Likelihood

2/5

In the hierarchy

  1. Part III: Governance, Power & Existential Concerns
  2. D22. AI System Safety & Alignment
  3. 22.3 Safety research & practice

Virtues and principles to explore

Held as inquiry, not as a verdict.

  • Humility

    Center principle

    The map is larger than any one of us.

  • Stewardship

    Service

    Hold what is built in trust for those who will live with it.

  • Hope

    Hope

    Stand in uncertainty, where there is room to act — not in optimism or despair.

Starter questions

Written to probe curiosity and learning, not accusation.

  1. 01What would Hope require of us here, before we proceed?
  2. 02What might we be missing if we treat “Red-teaming standards” only as a technical problem?
  3. 03If a colleague raised this concern tomorrow, how would we receive it as inquiry rather than accusation?
  4. 04What capacity would we need — in people, in the institution, in the tools — to meet this well?

Also on this branch

Frameworks and sources

Writing and incidents

Open indexes first. Then, if you wish, ask Grok to search the live web for this concern — one request, cached for the rest of this session.

NewsScholarIncidentsOECD monitorMIT repositoryWikipedia
See it on the mapTest an initiative against this

Whether capable systems can be steered toward what we actually intend.