Claim and evidence Close ×
The International AI Safety Report of January 2025 describes loss-of-control scenarios, records broad consensus that current general-purpose AI lacks the capabilities to pose this risk, and reports that expert opinion on its likelihood ranges from implausible to likely. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2025-01-29 · publication Records dated 2025 → Role Context Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Missing element The report does not state that advanced AI could cause extinction or disempowerment; it reports that some experts hold this and others do not. Scope and limits The report summarises the state of expert opinion and evidence; it records disagreement and does not itself assert the proposition.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
International AI Safety Report ↗ arXiv:2501.17805; published by the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT 2025/001) · 2025-01-29
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “There is broad consensus that current general-purpose AI lacks the capabilities to pose this risk. However, expert opinion on the likelihood of loss of control within the next several years varies greatly” Location in source Executive summary, PDF p. 19
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Yoshua Bengio; and others Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 668704691a2bc51c1f7630bc6a531adb33252af94a5e8475b766f59362ea9978). arXiv v1 PDF (2501.17805v1), the report of January 2025. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Yoshua Bengio, and others, “International AI Safety Report”, 2025-01-29. 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 (32 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. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 89) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
International AI Safety Report ↗ arXiv:2501.17805; published by the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT 2025/001) · 2025-01-29
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “These scenarios vary in their severity, but some experts give credence to outcomes as severe as the marginalisation or extinction of humanity.” Location in source Section 2.2.3, PDF p. 100
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Yoshua Bengio; and others Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 668704691a2bc51c1f7630bc6a531adb33252af94a5e8475b766f59362ea9978). arXiv v1 PDF (2501.17805v1), the report of January 2025. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Yoshua Bengio, and others, “International AI Safety Report”, 2025-01-29. 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 (22 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. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 89) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. 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 bears on the proposition without meeting its criterion; the record names the missing element. It is not an articulation and implies no influence.
Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.
Record ID rd-r08-intl-ai-safety-report-2025