Scholarlink

<p>While discourse around the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining importance, conceptual reflections on AI risk remain limited. Since both AI and risk have been defined differently across disciplines, there is in principle a plurality of ways in which AI risk could be understood. This makes it possible that the deceivingly simple notion of AI risk covers a variety of conceptual commitments and research objects. Especially in light of the interdisciplinarity of the field, a lack of clarity and reflective use of the concept of AI risk could muddle the field’s theoretical development. This paper therefore investigates the conceptualization and study of AI risk to structure the current understandings of AI risk. I do this by conducting a systematic literature review that specifically focuses on the way risk is defined, characterized, and researched in relation to AI. Among the 81 papers included in the study, I identify four distinct conceptualizations of AI risk: (1) risk as a regulatory tool to govern AI; (2) AI risk as a given reality that needs to be assessed and managed; (3) AI risk as a perception people hold and as a framing by the media; (4) AI risk as existential risk of artificial general intelligence. Based on a deep reading of the texts, I provide an overview of what research on AI risk from 2012 to 2024 looks like, contrast different approaches to AI risk, and identify of pressing lacunas within each cluster. Lastly, I highlight that the related notion of acceptable AI risk plays a key role yet is also underdeveloped.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

AI risk: structuring the debate

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月20日

查看全文
  • Lieke Fröberg

摘要

While discourse around the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining importance, conceptual reflections on AI risk remain limited. Since both AI and risk have been defined differently across disciplines, there is in principle a plurality of ways in which AI risk could be understood. This makes it possible that the deceivingly simple notion of AI risk covers a variety of conceptual commitments and research objects. Especially in light of the interdisciplinarity of the field, a lack of clarity and reflective use of the concept of AI risk could muddle the field’s theoretical development. This paper therefore investigates the conceptualization and study of AI risk to structure the current understandings of AI risk. I do this by conducting a systematic literature review that specifically focuses on the way risk is defined, characterized, and researched in relation to AI. Among the 81 papers included in the study, I identify four distinct conceptualizations of AI risk: (1) risk as a regulatory tool to govern AI; (2) AI risk as a given reality that needs to be assessed and managed; (3) AI risk as a perception people hold and as a framing by the media; (4) AI risk as existential risk of artificial general intelligence. Based on a deep reading of the texts, I provide an overview of what research on AI risk from 2012 to 2024 looks like, contrast different approaches to AI risk, and identify of pressing lacunas within each cluster. Lastly, I highlight that the related notion of acceptable AI risk plays a key role yet is also underdeveloped.