Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 4, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
A central challenge in AI is specifying objectives that align with human preferences. While existing theoretical results elucidate how misspecification impacts performance, they typically do not distinguish between merely suboptimal and catastrophic outcomes. To enable rigorous analysis of catastrophic risk from AI misalignment, we introduce a formal definition of catastrophic performance. Our definition is based on two reference values. The first, baseline value, captures the value attained if no agent is deployed. The second, orthogonal value, captures the value of a trajectory that is unrelated to human preferences, in a sense we describe. Orthogonal value is typically far worse than baseline value. We interpret these reference values through examples in which past human activity has altered the state of the environment to human benefit. Starting at the resulting state, an AI agent is deployed with the goal of accelerating further progress. Catastrophic performance represents this agent's undoing of benefits afforded by human activity.