AI safety & alignment
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 3
Newest dated source: 2025-09-22
At least one source was published within the 18-month window.
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Open in the glossary Reading notes · Structured record
In plain language
Research aimed at reducing AI harms and improving reliability and alignment with intended goals. A safety goal or framework is not proof that a system is safe. [1] [2] [3]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
Limits & distinctions
A safety framework records stated safeguards, not a guarantee of safe implementation or a measured catastrophe probability. [3]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
A fuller explanation
Work on making AI systems behave safely and reliably. Alignment concerns how system behavior relates to intended goals and human values; catastrophic-risk reduction is one focus of safety work. [1] [2]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
How it relates to the map
Neither a single actor nor one required pace preference. Research, evaluation and governance can support different development policies. [1] [3]
Reference this explanation or suggest a correction
Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work
Share this page
https://theaiatlas.org/ideas/safety/
Download a share image · Vector image
Image previews are summaries. Keep the page link so readers can check the evidence.
Sources and what we read
1. Concrete Problems in AI Safety
Source is over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2016-06-21
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Read the abstract's five accident-risk problems including reward hacking and distributional shift. Does not give a general catastrophe probability.
2. Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems
Source is over 18 months old.
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2019-06-05
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
Read abstract and revision history introducing mesa-optimization and the relation between learned and training objectives.
3. Strengthening our Frontier Safety Framework
Publication dates and source age
Sources counted: 1
Newest dated source: 2025-09-22
At least one source was published within the 18-month window.
Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.
Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.
The article contains an April 2026 update. A published framework is evidence of stated policy, not an estimate of catastrophe probability.
Edition and machine-readable evidence
Content version 0.20.0. Evidence cutoff 2026-09-15; this does not mean every source was read on that day.
Pinned complete dataset · Complete evidence page · Agent consumption guide