CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-21Cited by 0

The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems

Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CYcs.ETeess.SY2026-07-01

AI, Trust, and Teaming: The Humans-as-Handlers Approach for Autonomous and Opaque AI Systems

Nathan G. Wood

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous, and across domains, increasingly autonomous systems are carrying out tasks which raise significant ethical and legal challenges which demonstrate a need for strong human-machine teams rooted in trust. In this article, I argue t…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.HCcs.AIcs.CYcs.ETcs.RO2026-07-14

Practical Judgment, Virtue, and Intuition in the Use of Opaque AI-Enabled Systems

Nathan G. Wood, Andrew P. Rebera

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latt…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-20

The Autonomous Agency Scale: A Behavioral Framework for Measuring Self-Directed Behavior in AI Systems

Samuel Presgraves

Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way. A system can saturate capability benchmarks while remaining entirely reactive,…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-15

Learning Engagement Assistant (LEA): Cross-Course Scalability and Classroom Evaluation of an Agentic AI Tutoring System

Teri Rumble, Javad Zarrin, P. George Lovell, Ruth Falconer

This paper is an extension of a paper presented at the ICAART 2026 conference, which introduced LEA (Learning Engagement Assistant), an adaptive AI tutoring agent combining course-specific Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with structured Knowledge Component (KC) models across…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CYcs.AIcs.HC2026-07-06

Beyond Accuracy: How Humans Evaluate Legally Correct but Socially Controversial Legal Advice from Machines

Benjamin Minhao Chen, Zhiyu Li

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainlan…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.HC2026-07-15

Measuring How Students Rely on Generative AI in Academic Writing: Development and Multi-Source Validation of the Generative AI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS)

Shahin Hossain, Tukhbita Afroz Nawmi

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of relia…

View free PDFSource page