MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409862668 · doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101130

Potential for near-term AI risks to evolve into existential threats in healthcare

2025· article· en· W4409862668 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Health & Care Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityVector InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismHarmAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)Term (time)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Political scienceEngineering ethicsBusinessComputer securityEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent emergence of foundation model-based chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA), has showcased remarkable language mastery and intuitive comprehension capabilities. Despite significant efforts to identify and address the near-term risks associated with artificial intelligence (AI), our understanding of the existential threats they pose remains limited. Near-term risks stem from AI that already exist or are under active development with a clear trajectory towards deployment. Existential risks of AI can be an extension of the near-term risks studied by the fairness, accountability, transparency and ethics community, and are characterised by a potential to threaten humanity's long-term potential. In this paper, we delve into the ways AI can give rise to existential harm and explore potential risk mitigation strategies. This involves further investigation of critical domains, including AI alignment, overtrust in AI, AI safety, open-sourcing, the implications of AI to healthcare and the broader societal risks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it