The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19292v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:02:37 GMT
• Title: The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
• Abstract summary: In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by ecosystem before they are recognized as hazards.<n>We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is not only whether a model emits harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable.
• Score: 26.594498540217568
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

Related papers

• Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels [53.63220028820581]
  Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction.<n>We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:50:44Z)
• Epistemic Norms for AI Safety and Alignment Research [0.989901717499058]
  We argue that the two domains differ along two analytically independent axes.<n>sc ECAISA does not certify that any AI system is safe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T10:22:46Z)
• Detecting Is Not Resolving: The Monitoring Control Gap in Retrieval Augmented LLMs [20.59321114618083]
  We show that single-turn diagnostics systematically overestimate RAG safety, that contradiction is uncorrelated with safe resolution, and that no universal prompt fix exists.<n>The gap between what models recognize and what they do must be measured and closed before retrieval-augmented systems can be trusted in high-stakes settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T15:18:43Z)
• Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security [57.35851886874902]
  Agentic AI systems execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness.<n>This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments.<n>For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T10:26:37Z)
• What Breaks Embodied AI Security:LLM Vulnerabilities, CPS Flaws,or Something Else? [28.12412876058788]
  Embodied AI systems are rapidly transitioning from controlled environments to safety critical real-world deployments.<n>Unlike disembodied AI, failures in embodied intelligence lead to irreversible physical consequences.<n>We argue that a significant class of failures arises from embodiment-induced system-level mismatches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T13:29:00Z)
• Beyond single-channel agentic benchmarking [0.0]
  This paper argues that evaluating AI agents in isolation systematically mischaracterizes their operational safety when deployed within human-in-the-loop environments.<n>Even imperfect AI systems can nonetheless provide substantial safety utility by functioning as redundant audit layers against well-documented sources of human failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T08:22:02Z)
• The Shadow Self: Intrinsic Value Misalignment in Large Language Model Agents [37.75212140218036]
  We formalize the Loss-of-Control risk and identify the previously underexamined Intrinsic Value Misalignment (Intrinsic VM)<n>We then introduce IMPRESS, a scenario-driven framework for systematically assessing this risk.<n>We evaluate Intrinsic VM on 21 state-of-the-art LLM agents and find that it is a common and broadly observed safety risk across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:09:50Z)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• 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)
• An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Security [72.83728459135101]
  We develop an approach to address the risk of harms consequential enough to significantly harm humanity.<n>We focus on technical approaches to misuse and misalignment.<n>We briefly outline how these ingredients could be combined to produce safety cases for AGI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T15:59:31Z)
• OCCUQ: Exploring Efficient Uncertainty Quantification for 3D Occupancy Prediction [9.742801351723482]
  Current methods often overlook uncertainties arising from adversarial conditions or distributional shifts.<n>We propose an efficient adaptation of an uncertainty estimation technique for 3D occupancy prediction.<n>Our approach consistently demonstrates reliable uncertainty measures, indicating its potential for enhancing the robustness of autonomous driving systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T17:50:07Z)

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.