Unmitigated? How are the world's largest companies responding to AI risks?
Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel, Peter Slattery, Kun Zhao, Eunice Zhang, Erin Howard, Neil Thompson
Abstract
AI is introducing new risks to large companies and amplifying existing risks, but whether companies are addressing the AI risks they are exposed to is largely untested. We investigated what outsiders can observe: whether companies publicly acknowledge AI risks. We coded public documents from 200 of the largest companies worldwide, collected in early 2026, against the 24 AI risks in the MIT AI Risk Repository, and compared acknowledgements with expert judgements of risk severity, sector vulnerability, and AI role responsibility from a companion Delphi study of 272 AI risk experts. Of the 100 largest companies, 32% did not publicly acknowledge any AI risks. Of the largest 1000 companies, we estimate that 62% [95% CI: 54%, 70%] did not publicly acknowledge any AI risks. Where companies did acknowledge risks, five accounted for over half of all acknowledgements: discrimination, weapons & cyberattacks, fraud & scams, loss of privacy, and devaluation of human creativity. Several risks that experts judged most severe were almost absent: almost no company acknowledged power centralization (concentration of power among those who control advanced AI), competitive dynamics (racing to deploy AI at the expense of safety), or dangerous capabilities. Companies in sectors experts judged more vulnerable to a risk were more likely to acknowledge that risk. But even companies in sectors judged 'extremely vulnerable' to a risk usually did not acknowledge it. Companies with roles experts judged most responsible for addressing a risk were no more likely to acknowledge it than other companies. General-purpose AI developers acknowledged AI misalignment (15%) far less often than discrimination (85%). These findings provide an empirical baseline for the design of AI risk disclosure requirements.
Create a lesson
Related papers
From Guidelines to Practice: Defining Requirements for AI Red-Teaming Tools
Gia Phong Tran, Thai Duong Huynh, Randolph Loh et al.
Harder Than the Task: From Technical to Organizational Difficulty in AI Benchmarking
Victor Barres, Aden Barton, Nicolai J. Foss et al.
Reducing SNAP Payment Errors at Lower Cost With AI: A Simulation Study
Alex Chohlas-Wood
From Simulation to Sustainable Urban Mobility: A Purpose-Driven Framework for Advanced EV Charging Technology Transfer
Shangqing Wang, Syed Irtaza Haider, Shiwei Shen et al.
LLMs and the Organization of Scientific Work
Stefano Bianchini, Georgiana-Ioana Coroama
Defining Autonomous Weapon Systems: A schematic framework for refined purpose-driven definitions
Björn Lundgren, Nathan G. Wood