AI Safety: Not Optional, Not Later

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10630v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 06:36:05 GMT
• Title: AI Safety: Not Optional, Not Later
• Abstract summary: We present a safety-by-design assurance architecture combining model-level supervision, such as Scientist AI, with system-level controls over scaffolds and harnesses.
• Score: 55.71477360134284
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Incidents show that AI safety failures often arise across multiple layers. We present a safety-by-design assurance architecture combining model-level supervision, such as Scientist AI, with system-level controls over scaffolds and harnesses, independent verification, monitoring, and evidence infrastructure, supported by governance for accountability and evidence interoperability.

Related papers

• Toward Secure AI-Powered Penetration Testing Agents: Security Threats, Guardrails, and Architectural Perspectives [0.0]
  LLM-powered autonomous agents are transforming the penetration testing space with dynamic, multi-step offensive security.<n>But the ability to have persistent memory, to take actions in the real world, and to do long-horizon reasoning raises qualitatively different security concerns.<n>Existing guardrail mechanisms for conversational AI may not be sufficient to secure autonomous AI pentesting agents accordingly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T06:19:50Z)
• Trustworthy Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Cybersecurity and Systems Survey on Threat Landscapes, Defense Architectures, and Open Challenges [0.0]
  This survey delivers a comprehensive systems-security reference framework for trustworthy agentic AI.<n>We formalize the general agent architecture as a stateful 5-tuple and establish a 6-dimensional trustworthiness taxonomy covering security, safety, privacy, explainability, fairness, and accountability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-12T05:51:27Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Connected Dependability Cage: Run-Time Function and Anomaly Monitoring for the Development and Operation of Safe Automated Vehicles [4.255452662944005]
  Connected Dependability Cage enables hierarchical fail-operational behavior in AI-enabled perception systems.<n>System supports graceful degradation, ultimately enabling a transition to a minimal-risk maneuver strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T11:20:39Z)
• Safety in Embodied AI: A Survey of Risks, Attacks, and Defenses [168.50301366360344]
  Embodied Artificial Intelligence (Embodied AI) integrates perception, cognition, planning, and interaction into agents that operate in safety-critical environments.<n>Unlike digital AI systems, embodied agents must act under uncertain sensing, incomplete knowledge, and dynamic human-robot interactions.<n>This survey provides a comprehensive review of safety research in embodied AI, examining attacks and defenses across the full embodied pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T13:21:44Z)
• Trust as Monitoring: Evolutionary Dynamics of User Trust and AI Developer Behaviour [59.27481013639016]
  We study how user trust strategies and developer choices between safe and unsafe AI co-evolve under different levels of monitoring cost and institutional regimes.<n>We find three robust long-run regimes: no adoption with unsafe development, unsafe but widely adopted systems, and safe systems that are widely adopted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T19:04:23Z)
• Constructing Safety Cases for AI Systems: A Reusable Template Framework [10.44708664414503]
  Safety cases, structured arguments that a system is acceptably safe, are becoming central to the governance of AI systems.<n>Traditional safety-case practices from aviation or nuclear engineering rely on well-specified system boundaries, stable architectures, and known failure modes.<n>This study examines how safety cases are currently constructed for AI systems and why classical approaches fail to capture these dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T09:53:22Z)
• BlueGlass: A Framework for Composite AI Safety [0.2999888908665658]
  This paper introduces BlueGlass, a framework designed to facilitate AI safety by providing a unified infrastructure.<n>To demonstrate the utility of this framework, we present three safety-oriented analyses on vision-language evaluation.<n>More broadly, this work contributes infrastructure and findings for building more robust and reliable AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T09:45:34Z)
• Engineering Risk-Aware, Security-by-Design Frameworks for Assurance of Large-Scale Autonomous AI Models [0.0]
  This paper presents an enterprise-level, risk-aware, security-by-design approach for large-scale autonomous AI systems.<n>We detail a unified pipeline that delivers provable guarantees of model behavior under adversarial and operational stress.<n>Case studies in national security, open-source model governance, and industrial automation demonstrate measurable reductions in vulnerability and compliance overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T20:14:53Z)
• AISafetyLab: A Comprehensive Framework for AI Safety Evaluation and Improvement [73.0700818105842]
  We introduce AISafetyLab, a unified framework and toolkit that integrates representative attack, defense, and evaluation methodologies for AI safety.<n> AISafetyLab features an intuitive interface that enables developers to seamlessly apply various techniques.<n>We conduct empirical studies on Vicuna, analyzing different attack and defense strategies to provide valuable insights into their comparative effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T02:11:52Z)
• Landscape of AI safety concerns -- A methodology to support safety assurance for AI-based autonomous systems [0.0]
  AI has emerged as a key technology, driving advancements across a range of applications.<n>The challenge of assuring safety in systems that incorporate AI components is substantial.<n>We propose a novel methodology designed to support the creation of safety assurance cases for AI-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T16:38:16Z)

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.