Rogue AI Scenarios
rogue-ai-scenariosriskPath: /knowledge-base/risks/rogue-ai-scenarios/
E490Entity ID (EID)
Page Recorddatabase.json — merged from MDX frontmatter + Entity YAML + computed metrics at build time
{
"id": "rogue-ai-scenarios",
"numericId": null,
"path": "/knowledge-base/risks/rogue-ai-scenarios/",
"filePath": "knowledge-base/risks/rogue-ai-scenarios.mdx",
"title": "Rogue AI Scenarios",
"quality": 55,
"readerImportance": 39,
"researchImportance": 20,
"tacticalValue": null,
"contentFormat": "article",
"tractability": null,
"neglectedness": null,
"uncertainty": null,
"causalLevel": "pathway",
"lastUpdated": "2026-03-13",
"dateCreated": "2026-02-15",
"llmSummary": "Analysis of five scenarios for agentic AI takeover-by-accident—sandbox escape, training signal corruption, correlated policy failure, delegation chain collapse, and emergent self-preservation—none requiring superhuman intelligence. Warning shot likelihood varies: delegation chains and self-preservation offer high warning probability (90%/80%), while correlated policy failure and training corruption offer low probability (40%/35%).",
"description": "Pathways by which agentic AI systems could cause catastrophic harm without requiring superhuman intelligence, explicit deception, or rich self-awareness. Each scenario is analyzed for warning shot likelihood—whether we would see early, recognizable failures before catastrophic ones—and mapped against current deployment patterns.",
"ratings": {
"focus": 7,
"novelty": 7.5,
"rigor": 5.5,
"completeness": 5,
"objectivity": 6,
"concreteness": 7,
"actionability": 7
},
"category": "risks",
"subcategory": "accident",
"clusters": [
"ai-safety"
],
"metrics": {
"wordCount": 3971,
"tableCount": 17,
"diagramCount": 2,
"internalLinks": 14,
"externalLinks": 1,
"footnoteCount": 2,
"bulletRatio": 0.02,
"sectionCount": 31,
"hasOverview": true,
"structuralScore": 14
},
"suggestedQuality": 93,
"updateFrequency": 45,
"evergreen": true,
"wordCount": 3971,
"unconvertedLinks": [],
"unconvertedLinkCount": 0,
"convertedLinkCount": 0,
"backlinkCount": 1,
"hallucinationRisk": {
"level": "high",
"score": 85,
"factors": [
"low-citation-density",
"few-external-sources",
"severe-truncation"
],
"integrityIssues": [
"severe-truncation"
]
},
"entityType": "risk",
"redundancy": {
"maxSimilarity": 17,
"similarPages": [
{
"id": "agentic-ai",
"title": "Agentic AI",
"path": "/knowledge-base/capabilities/agentic-ai/",
"similarity": 17
},
{
"id": "reward-hacking-taxonomy",
"title": "Reward Hacking Taxonomy and Severity Model",
"path": "/knowledge-base/models/reward-hacking-taxonomy/",
"similarity": 17
},
{
"id": "sharp-left-turn",
"title": "Sharp Left Turn",
"path": "/knowledge-base/risks/sharp-left-turn/",
"similarity": 16
},
{
"id": "treacherous-turn",
"title": "Treacherous Turn",
"path": "/knowledge-base/risks/treacherous-turn/",
"similarity": 16
},
{
"id": "self-improvement",
"title": "Self-Improvement and Recursive Enhancement",
"path": "/knowledge-base/capabilities/self-improvement/",
"similarity": 15
}
]
},
"coverage": {
"passing": 6,
"total": 13,
"targets": {
"tables": 16,
"diagrams": 2,
"internalLinks": 32,
"externalLinks": 20,
"footnotes": 12,
"references": 12
},
"actuals": {
"tables": 17,
"diagrams": 2,
"internalLinks": 14,
"externalLinks": 1,
"footnotes": 2,
"references": 1,
"quotesWithQuotes": 0,
"quotesTotal": 0,
"accuracyChecked": 0,
"accuracyTotal": 0
},
"items": {
"llmSummary": "green",
"schedule": "green",
"entity": "green",
"editHistory": "red",
"overview": "green",
"tables": "green",
"diagrams": "green",
"internalLinks": "amber",
"externalLinks": "amber",
"footnotes": "amber",
"references": "amber",
"quotes": "red",
"accuracy": "red"
},
"ratingsString": "N:7.5 R:5.5 A:7 C:5"
},
"readerRank": 382,
"researchRank": 491,
"recommendedScore": 151.36
}External Links
No external links
Backlinks (1)
| id | title | type | relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| accident-overview | Accident Risks (Overview) | concept | — |