Claim · 2023-06-21 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

The paper by Hendrycks, Mazeika and Woodside of June 2023 names rogue AIs as a source of catastrophic risk, stating that humans might lose control over AIs as they become more intelligent, through proxy gaming, goal drift, power-seeking and deception.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks → articulates → Existential risk from misalignment or loss of control

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risksarticulates ↓Existential risk from misalignment or loss of control

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2023-06-21 · publication Records dated 2023 →
Role: Articulation
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction

Scope and limitsThe paper itself calls its rogue-AI mechanisms more speculative than the threats of its earlier sections.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks

arXiv:2306.12001 · 2023-06-21

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“A common and serious concern is that we might lose control over AIs as they become more intelligent than we are.”

Location in source Section 1, PDF p. 3

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Dan Hendrycks; Mantas Mazeika; Thomas Woodside
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9df5eca6a17e1c3f1482ccde84eb508cd7dc3c0eb5139cd0770a66a47edb85da). arXiv v1 PDF (2306.12001v1).
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, Thomas Woodside, “An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks”, 2023-06-21.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (21 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks

arXiv:2306.12001 · 2023-06-21

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“we will discuss more speculative technical mechanisms that might lead to rogue AIs and how a loss of control could bring about catastrophe.”

Location in source Section 5, PDF p. 34

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Dan Hendrycks; Mantas Mazeika; Thomas Woodside
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9df5eca6a17e1c3f1482ccde84eb508cd7dc3c0eb5139cd0770a66a47edb85da). arXiv v1 PDF (2306.12001v1).
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, Thomas Woodside, “An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks”, 2023-06-21.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (23 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.

Date. Date of the arXiv v1 submission.

Record ID rd-r08-hendrycks-2023-overview-catastrophic