This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
AI technology has the potential to redefine power dynamics across economic, political, and social spheres. As a result, many countries and corporations are investing heavily in AI research and development with the goal of becoming leaders in the area. While market competition can lead to beneficial economic and consumer outcomes, it also presents various risks, particularly in the field of AI. In intensely competitive markets, AI developers and deployers may have an incentive to prioritize short-term, internal goals (e.g., profit or influence) to "secure their positions and survive", at the expense of external goals that encourage longer-term societal well-being.
A key concern is that AI companies may cut safety corners, releasing insecure and error-prone systems in a bid to stay ahead. These immature systems may present risks that are hard to identify and evaluate. Akin to the fossil fuel industry, profit-focused developers may allow their technologies to cause widespread externalities, such as "pollution, resource depletion, mental illness, misinformation, or injustice". Countries or other state-like actors may engage in an AI-enabled military arms race, which could encourage the making of bad bets with a high potential for harm.
Excerpt from the MIT AI Risk Repository full report
AI developers or state-like actors competing in an AI ‘race’ by rapidly developing, deploying, and applying AI systems to maximize strategic or economic advantage, increasing the risk they release unsafe and error-prone systems.
Incident volume relative to governance coverage; each dot is one of 24 subdomains
Entity
Who or what caused the harm
Intent
Whether the harm was intentional or accidental
Timing
Whether the risk is pre- or post-deployment
No recorded incidents for this subdomain.
Risks may still apply even without documented incidents.
of the 272 AI experts surveyed named competitive dynamics one of the three AI risks they are most concerned about over the next five years (2025–2030).
average probability experts placed on harm from competitive dynamics reaching catastrophic levels (>1M deaths, >$100B loss, or civilization-scale damage) within five years, falling to 7.3% with pragmatic mitigations.
With pragmatic mitigations
Average severity falls from severe to substantial.
Vulnerabilities that can be exploited in AI systems, software development toolchains, and hardware, resulting in unauthorized access, data and privacy breaches, or system manipulation causing unsafe outputs or behavior.
299 shared governance docs
Using AI systems to develop cyber weapons (e.g., by coding cheaper, more effective malware), develop new or enhance existing weapons (e.g., Lethal Autonomous Weapons or chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives), or use weapons to cause mass harm.
223 shared governance docs
AI systems that fail to perform reliably or effectively under varying conditions, exposing them to errors and failures that can have significant consequences, especially in critical applications or areas that require moral reasoning.
210 shared governance docs
AI systems that develop, access, or are provided with capabilities that increase their potential to cause mass harm through deception, weapons development and acquisition, persuasion and manipulation, political strategy, cyber-offense, AI development, situational awareness, and self-proliferation. These capabilities may cause mass harm due to malicious human actors, misaligned AI systems, or failure in the AI system.
172 shared governance docs
Directs the Committee on National Security Systems, Secretary of War, and Homeland Security to prioritize AI-enabled cyber defense. Establishes AI cybersecurity clearinghouse. Develops classified benchmarking for AI models. Enhances AI capacity to protect against illegal computer access and exploitation.
Requires large frontier AI developers in Illinois to establish and publish a frontier AI framework addressing catastrophic risk assessment by 2028, undergo annual independent third-party audits, file an annual disclosure/registration statement, and report critical safety incidents within 72 hours; prohibits false statements about AI risk or framework compliance; establishes escalating civil penalties up to $3,000,000 per violation; and protects whistleblowers who report safety violations.
Regulates human-like interactive AI services in China, requiring compliance with security, data protection, and ethical standards. Assigns oversight responsibilities to cybersecurity departments. Encourages indigenous technological innovation while imposing strict content controls, especially regarding minors and national security.
