Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Affordance Analyses of AI Safety Policies: A Proof-of-Concept using OpenAI's Preparedness Framework

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Authors

Coggins, Sam
Saeri, Alexander K.
Daniell, Katherine A.
Henne, Kathryn
Ruster, Lorenn P.
Liu, Jessie
Davis, Jenny L.

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

Access Statement

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Abstract

Prominent AI companies are producing risk management frameworks as a type of voluntary self-regulation. As interventions, these policies purport to establish risk thresholds and safety procedures for the development and deployment of highly capable AI. Understanding which AI risks are covered and what actions are allowed, refused, demanded, encouraged, or discouraged by these risk management policies is a foundational step in assessing how they might govern the development and deployment of AI systems in practice. To investigate how such policies are operationalised, we introduce a transferable AI policy analysis method based on the Mechanisms & Conditions model of affordances (M&C) and the MIT AI Risk Repository. We illustrate the utility of this method by applying it to OpenAI's "Preparedness Framework Version 2"(April 2025). We find that OpenAI's safety policy requests evaluation of a small minority of AI risks, encourages deployment of systems with "Medium"capabilities for unintentionally enabling "severe harm"(which OpenAI defines as > 1000 deaths or > $100B in damages), and allows OpenAI's CEO to deploy even more dangerous capabilities. These findings suggest that effective mitigation of AI risks requires more robust governance interventions beyond current industry self-regulation - of which there are well-established models in other domains. In addition, we illustrate how our affordance analysis provides a replicable method for evaluating what AI policies permit versus what they claim. Applied broadly, our AI policy analysis method will help clarify what is needed to mitigate AI-enabled harms and to facilitate trustworthy and socially beneficial AI systems.

Description

Citation

Source

Book Title

ACM FAccT 2026 - Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Entity type

Publication

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until