This subcategory includes the broad set of risks associated with the failure of an AI system to fulfill its intended purpose. The literature identifies four main situations in which an AI may fail to perform as expected or desired.
First, the AI system can fail if it lacks the inherent capability or skill required to perform a task or if this skill is poorly developed. The consequences may be particularly harmful in situations where an AI is required to reason at a human level about important moral issues but does not possess this capability. Cultural, individual, and temporal differences in ideas of what is "right" or "ethical" compound the challenge of endowing AI with appropriate and adaptable ethical standards that are fit for all purposes.
Second, the AI system can fail when it is not robust in "out of distribution (OOD)" situations: data or conditions that were not anticipated during its training phase. These failures may occur because the training data did not confer a particular skill to the AI or because the skill was learned in a fragile way that did not permit generalization to unpredictable and complex real-world environments.
Third, the AI system can fail or become unstable when it is unfit to handle unusual changes or perturbations in input data. These unusual changes could be due to environmental noise, invalid inputs, or adversarial inputs from a malicious attacker.
Fourth, the AI system can fail as a result of oversights, undetected bugs, or errors in the design process. A common design oversight is a lack of comprehensive technical safeguards to prevent unintended downstream uses or consequences. Critical design choices about the algorithm, optimization techniques, and model architecture can also directly influence whether a system is able to consistently perform its intended function, leading to possible harm.
Excerpt from the MIT AI Risk Repository full report
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.
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
A Tesla operating in Full Self-Driving mode struck and killed a 71-year-old pedestrian in Solano County, marking the second major FSD-related crash in the area within two weeks.
Developers: Tesla, Automated driving system developers, Advanced driver-assistance system developers
Deployers: Tesla drivers, Road users, Motorists, Drivers, Automated driving system deployers
Anthropic customers report that the company's AI-powered customer support chatbot, Fin, frequently fails to resolve billing and subscription issues, trapping users in circular conversations. Multiple users described being unable to reach human support, resulting in prolonged financial overcharges and, in one instance, the accidental cancellation of a business account. The reports highlight concerns regarding the lack of transparency and human oversight in AI-driven customer service systems.
Developers: Fin, Chatbot developers, AI customer support system developers
Deployers: Anthropic
A 16-year-old hiker was rescued by helicopter from a dangerous cliff on Crown Mountain after allegedly using Anthropic's Claude AI chatbot to help plan his route, which led him onto a steep climbing path.
Developers: Large language model developers, Chatbot developers, Anthropic
Deployers: Men and boys, Hikers, Claude users, Chatbot users, Bryce Vincent Gowryluk, Boys, Adolescents, Adolescent boys
of the 272 AI experts surveyed named lack of capability or robustness 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 lack of capability or robustness reaching catastrophic levels (>1M deaths, >$100B loss, or civilization-scale damage) within five years, falling to 7.0% with pragmatic mitigations.
With pragmatic mitigations
Average severity falls from severe to substantial.
289 classified mentions from 75 companies.
Browse all 289 mentions →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.
390 shared governance docs
AI systems that memorize and leak sensitive personal data or infer private information about individuals without their consent. Unexpected or unauthorized sharing of data and information can compromise user expectation of privacy, assist identity theft, or cause loss of confidential intellectual property.
323 shared governance docs
Inadequate regulatory frameworks and oversight mechanisms that fail to keep pace with AI development, leading to ineffective governance and the inability to manage AI risks appropriately.
307 shared governance docs
Users anthropomorphizing, trusting, or relying on AI systems, leading to emotional or material dependence and inappropriate relationships with or expectations of AI systems. Trust can be exploited by malicious actors (e.g., to harvest personal information or enable manipulation), or result in harm from inappropriate use of AI in critical situations (e.g., medical emergency). Overreliance on AI systems can compromise autonomy and weaken social ties.
238 shared governance docs
Requires operators to disclose AI interactions, especially to minors. Prohibits manipulative tactics, sexually explicit content, or misleading mental health claims. Mandates crisis intervention protocols. Subjects violations to penalties and limits enforcement to the attorney general or consumer protection director.
Requires operators of conversational AI services to disclose AI status to all users, apply added safeguards for minors, such as preventing sexually explicit content and simulated emotional dependence, and implement suicide and self-harm crisis-referral protocols. Prohibits presenting outputs as provided by or equivalent to licensed professionals, and requires annual reporting to the Attorney General on crisis referrals and related protocols.
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.