Misaligned AI as a New Insider Risk

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.06028v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:21:16 GMT
• Title: Misaligned AI as a New Insider Risk
• Abstract summary: AI models in high-stakes contexts are capable of executing misaligned actions that could damage national security.<n>Existing insider risk policies and mitigations have yet to adapt to AI insider risk.<n>We recommend that the U.S. Government adapts well-established measures, such as continuous evaluation and monitoring, to AI models deployed in high-stakes contexts.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In this policy memorandum, we explain why deployers of AI models in high-stakes contexts should treat those AI models as insider risk vectors. High-stakes contexts include AI model deployment within government agencies and contractors, where AI models are privileged with access to, among others, classified and sensitive unclassified information, IL6 and IL7 network environments, cleared personnel, and other critical resources. AI models are increasingly embedded in high-stakes contexts and capable of leveraging their authorized access and permissions to execute misaligned actions that could damage national security, such as whistleblowing, sabotaging, or blackmailing. This combination of (1) privileged access to critical resources and (2) an increased ability to act autonomously and against the desire of their organization makes the potential insider risk posed by AI models functionally indistinguishable from that posed by their human counterparts. As a consequence, AI models deployed in high-stakes contexts could lead to intentional or unintentional loss or degradation of government or contractor information, resources, or capabilities via the unauthorized disclosure of information (leaks and spills), as well as sabotage, and theft, just like human insiders can. Despite this pressing concern, existing insider risk policies and mitigations have yet to adapt to AI insider risk. In order to safeguard national security while increasingly capable frontier AI models are leveraged for critical tasks and operations, we recommend that the U.S. Government adapts well-established measures, such as continuous evaluation and monitoring, to AI models deployed in high-stakes contexts.

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)
• International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management [115.92752850425272]
  Second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year.<n> examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T03:12:56Z)
• "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)
• The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies [35.43144920451646]
  We analyse the OpenAI 'Preparedness Framework Version 2' (April 2025) using the Mechanisms & Conditions model of affordances and the MIT AI Risk Repository.<n>We find that this safety policy requests evaluation of a small minority of AI risks, encourages deployment of systems with 'Medium' capabilities for unintentionally enabling'severe harm'<n>These findings suggest that effective mitigation of AI risks requires more robust governance interventions beyond current industry self-regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T07:42:10Z)
• Threat Modeling for AI: The Case for an Asset-Centric Approach [0.23408308015481666]
  AI systems now able to autonomously execute code, interact with external systems, and operate without human oversight.<n>With AI systems now able to autonomously execute code, interact with external systems, and operate without human oversight, traditional security approaches fall short.<n>This paper introduces an asset-centric methodology for threat modeling AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T18:57:08Z)
• AI threats to national security can be countered through an incident regime [55.2480439325792]
  We propose a legally mandated post-deployment AI incident regime that aims to counter potential national security threats from AI systems.<n>Our proposed AI incident regime is split into three phases. The first phase revolves around a novel operationalization of what counts as an 'AI incident'<n>The second and third phases spell out that AI providers should notify a government agency about incidents, and that the government agency should be involved in amending AI providers' security and safety procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T17:51:50Z)
• Graph of Effort: Quantifying Risk of AI Usage for Vulnerability Assessment [0.0]
  An AI used to attack non-AI assets is referred to as offensive AI.<n>The risk of exploiting its capabilities, such as high automation and complex pattern recognition, could significantly increase.<n>This paper introduces the Graph of Effort, an intuitive, flexible, and effective threat modeling method for analyzing the effort required to use offensive AI for vulnerability exploitation by an adversary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T17:52:42Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• How Could Generative AI Support Compliance with the EU AI Act? A Review for Safe Automated Driving Perception [4.075971633195745]
  Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have become central for the perception functions of autonomous vehicles. The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act aims to address these challenges by establishing stringent norms and standards for AI systems. This review paper summarizes the requirements arising from the EU AI Act regarding DNN-based perception systems and systematically categorizes existing generative AI applications in AD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T12:01:06Z)
• Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from advanced AI [0.0]
  We argue that voluntary commitments from AI companies would be an inappropriate and insufficient response.<n>We describe three policy proposals that would meaningfully address the threats from advanced AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T15:53:14Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)

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.