Evidence record 17492 · automatically gathered

Epistemic norms for AI safety and alignment research

Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high. AI safety and alignment research has a different mission: to ensure that catastrophic failures never occur, under sparse evidence, adversarial dynamics, and fat-tailed risk. We argue that the two domains differ along two analytically independent axes — capability profile (demonstrating the absence of hazardous behaviours versus the presence of positive capabilities) and risk

Record details

Published: 7 August 2026
Source: Artificial Intelligence Review
Category: Research
Topics: Safety & alignment
Retrieved: 8 August 2026

source-onlyevidence status

These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.

How to cite this record

ethics.ai (7 August 2026), “Epistemic norms for AI safety and alignment research,” evidence record 17492, https://ethics.ai/record/17492 (originally published by Artificial Intelligence Review).

JSON

Use and limitations

This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.