aiqbench analysis
This research proposes a framework to translate model-level behaviors into quantifiable system-wide risks within critical infrastructure like financial settlement networks. By applying hazard analysis to scenarios involving adversarial LLM manipulation, the study demonstrates how simple input shifts can cascade into systemic failures, offering a pathway for evidence-based governance of AI in complex sociotechnical environments.
Quantifying System-Level Harms from AI Adoption in Complex Sociotechnical Systems
arXiv:2608.23906v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into complex sociotechnical systems, including Critical National Infrastructure (CNI), where harms emerge from interactions between technical, human, and organisational elements. Yet current AI evaluation remains model-centric, offering little insight into how observed behaviours might translate into system-level risk. We propose a framework that links structured hazard analysis, component-level testing, and probabilistic system modelling to bridge this gap. By providing a traceable pathway from model behaviour to system-level outcomes, the framework enables practitioners to answer the "so what?" of AI failures, quantify their systemic impact, and move toward evidence-based and anticipatory governance of AI in complex systems. Applied to the UK's Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system as an illustrative worked example, we derive AI-driven loss scenarios using Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) and examine adversarial manipulation of LLM-based trading as one such loss scenario. Component-level experiments show that simple adversarial inputs induce measurable behavioural shifts where AI recommendations are followed. Under the component-to-system mapping used here for a financial contagion model, these shifts alter system resilience, increasing bank failures and lowering the threshold at which shocks lead to cascading disruption, particularly under widespread or monopolistic AI adoption.
Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into complex sociotechnical systems, including Critical National Infrastructure (CNI), where harms emerge from interactions between technical, human, and organisational elements. Yet current AI evaluation remains model-centric, offering little insight into how observed behaviours might translate into system-level risk. We propose a framework that links structured hazard analysis, component-level testing, and probabilistic system modelling to bridge this gap. By providing a traceable pathway from model behaviour to system-level outcomes, the framework enables practitioners to answer the "so what?" of AI failures, quantify their systemic impact, and move toward evidence-based and anticipatory governance of AI in complex systems. Applied to the UK's Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) system as an illustrative worked example, we derive AI-driven loss scenarios using Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) and examine adversarial manipulation of LLM-based trading as one such loss scenario. Component-level experiments show that simple adversarial inputs induce measurable behavioural shifts where AI recommendations are followed. Under the component-to-system mapping used here for a financial contagion model, these shifts alter system resilience, increasing bank failures and lowering the threshold at which shocks lead to cascading disruption, particularly under widespread or monopolistic AI adoption.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.23906 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.23906v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.23906 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 287 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026
Assessing Information Ecosystems : How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid Threats
carnegieendowment.org · Aug 5, 2026
Does ChatGPT really have a strong left-wing bias?
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026