From Catastrophic to Concrete: Reframing AI Risk Communication for Public Mobilization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.06525v2
• Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 01:52:55 GMT
• Title: From Catastrophic to Concrete: Reframing AI Risk Communication for Public Mobilization
• Authors: Philip Trippenbach, Isabella Scala, Jai Bhambra, Rowan Emslie,
• Abstract summary: We show that public concern over AI rises when framed in terms of proximate harms.<n>We argue that mobilization around these everyday concerns can raise the political salience of AI.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Effective governance of artificial intelligence (AI) requires public engagement, yet communication strategies centered on existential risk have not produced sustained mobilization. In this paper, we examine the psychological and opinion barriers that limit engagement with extinction narratives, such as mortality avoidance, exponential growth bias, and the absence of self-referential anchors. We contrast them with evidence that public concern over AI rises when framed in terms of proximate harms such as employment disruption, relational instability, and mental health issues. We validate these findings through actual message testing with 1063 respondents, with the evidence showing that AI risks to Jobs and Children have the highest potential to mobilize people, while Existential Risk is the lowest-performing theme across all demographics. Using survey data from five countries, we identify two segments (Tech-Positive Urbanites and World Guardians) as particularly receptive to such framing and more likely to participate in civic action. Finally, we argue that mobilization around these everyday concerns can raise the political salience of AI, creating "policy demand" for structural measures to mitigate AI risks. We conclude that this strategy creates the conditions for successful regulatory change.

Related papers

• Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report v1.5 [61.787178868669265]
  This technical report presents an updated and granular assessment of five critical dimensions: cyber offense, persuasion and manipulation, strategic deception, uncontrolled AI R&D, and self-replication.<n>This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T04:30:06Z)
• "We are not Future-ready": Understanding AI Privacy Risks and Existing Mitigation Strategies from the Perspective of AI Developers in Europe [56.1653658714305]
  We interviewed 25 AI developers based in Europe to understand which privacy threats they believe pose the greatest risk to users, developers, and businesses.<n>We find that there is little consensus among AI developers on the relative ranking of privacy risks.<n>While AI developers are aware of proposed mitigation strategies for addressing these risks, they reported minimal real-world adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:51:33Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Advancing Science- and Evidence-based AI Policy [163.43609502905707]
  This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize the relationship between evidence and policy to address the opportunities and challenges of AI.<n>An increasing number of efforts address this problem by often either (i) contributing research into the risks of AI and their effective mitigation or (ii) advocating for policy to address these risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T23:20:58Z)
• Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI [0.0]
  This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact.<n>The scenarios span domains such as sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal inequality, art, and warfare.<n>Experts consistently anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater benefits, and express more positive sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
• Implications for Governance in Public Perceptions of Societal-scale AI Risks [0.29022435221103454]
  Voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T11:52:25Z)
• AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research [6.96356867602455]
  We argue that the recent embrace of machine learning in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T05:19:45Z)
• Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI [94.06233419171016]
  Applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T21:14:24Z)
• An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks [38.84933208563934]
  This paper provides an overview of the main sources of catastrophic AI risks, which we organize into four categories. Malicious use, in which individuals or groups intentionally use AIs to cause harm; AI race, in which competitive environments compel actors to deploy unsafe AIs or cede control to AIs. organizational risks, highlighting how human factors and complex systems can increase the chances of catastrophic accidents. rogue AIs, describing the inherent difficulty in controlling agents far more intelligent than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T03:35:06Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.