The AI Risk Observatory: What Can We Learn from AI Disclosures in Annual Reports About Societal Resilience?

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed across socially consequential domains, reports of AI-related harms and failures have grown in frequency and diversity. Although existing governance frameworks articulate high-level principles for responsible AI, large-scale empirical resources for tracking and analyzing real-world AI risk incidents remain limited. Existing incident collections are often manually curated, relatively small in scale, and insufficient for continuous, data-driven monitoring and downstream computational analysis. To address this need, we present RiskNet, a large-scale dataset of AI risk incidents constructed from large-scale multilingual news sources. RiskNet applies a structured pipeline for AI risk news identification, event-level report screening, incident alignment, and multi-dimensional incident classification. The resulting resource organizes dispersed news reports into incident-centered records and provides benchmark datasets for event classification, incident alignment, and incident-level risk labeling. In its current release, RiskNet covers hundreds of millions of source records and yields a large-scale collection of AI risk-related reports, including aligned incident clusters and annotated benchmark subsets. The dataset is also accessible through an online platform for browsing and exploration. We describe the data sources, processing workflow, taxonomy design, and technical validation of the resource. RiskNet is intended to support downstream research on AI safety, governance, risk analysis, and benchmarking, as well as longitudinal and cross-source analyses of AI-related harms. By providing a structured and reusable empirical resource, RiskNet helps bridge the gap between high-level governance principles and the documented realities of AI risk incidents.

Frontier AI companies first deploy their most advanced models internally, for weeks or months of safety testing, evaluation, and iteration, before a possible public release. For example, Anthropic recently developed a new class of model with advanced cyberoffense-relevant capabilities, Mythos Preview, which was available internally for at least six weeks before it was publicly announced. This internal use creates risks that external deployment frameworks may fail to address. Legal frameworks, notably California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53), New York's Responsible AI Safety And Education (RAISE) Act, and the EU's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, all discuss risks from internal AI use. They require frontier developers to make and implement plans for how to manage risks from internal use, and to produce internal use risk reports describing their safeguards and any residual risks. This guide provides a harmonized standard for companies to produce internal use risk reports suitable for all three regulatory frameworks. It is addressed primarily to evaluation and safety teams at frontier AI developers, and secondarily to regulators and auditors seeking to understand what good reporting looks like. Given the pace of AI R&D automation and the limited external visibility into how companies use their most capable models internally, regular and detailed risk reporting may be one of the few mechanisms available to ensure that the risks from internal AI use are identified and managed before they materialize. Whenever a substantially more capable or riskier model is deployed internally, the developer should create a risk report and argue why the model is safe to deploy. We structure the reporting framework around two threat vectors -- autonomous AI misbehavior and insider threats -- and three risk factors for each: means, motive, and opportunity.

The rapid deployment of AI systems across high-stakes domains has created urgent demand for standardized evaluation, yet the field remains fragmented across competing risk taxonomies that catalog risks without showing how an audit is executed. At least 74 AI risk taxonomies exist, and almost all stop at the catalog. The hard part of auditing is not naming a risk but operationalizing it: turning it into a test run against a real system, a measured value, a calibrated severity, and a defensible grade. This paper leads with that bridge. We present the operationalization layer Eticas has built and run, shown end to end on a single risk (PII leakage) against a public benchmark, and then the open taxonomy that makes the method scale. On GPT-4-0314, a disclosure risk that seven external frameworks require be controlled is measured at 0%, 51%, and 84% disclosure as adversarial conditioning increases, mapping through calibrated severity bands to a subcategory grade of E with a SYSTEMIC pattern. Around this example, the Eticas AI Risk Taxonomy v2.0.0 organizes 76 active subcategories across 10 categories and 20 sub-groups, with mappings to 18 external frameworks across compliance, reference, and academic tiers. Its category and sub-group layer is published under CC BY 4.0 as open semantic infrastructure with stable URIs and SKOS/JSON-LD distributions, and a worked subcategory example shows the operational layer down to its severity thresholds. The contribution is the demonstrated bridge from concept to graded finding, anchored by a clean separation of risks from the mechanisms by which they surface, and framed by an open-core model in which the conceptual scaffold is open and the methodology calibration is the practitioner layer. This is the infrastructure the AI auditing field needs: shared, open, and demonstrably operable.