AIM: AI Incidents and Hazards Monitor

The event involves AI systems (deepfake technology) used to create fraudulent content that has directly led to harm by deceiving users and promoting fraudulent products, which constitutes harm to communities and violations of rights. Meta's legal actions are responses to these harms. Since the harms have already occurred due to the use of AI-generated deepfakes, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.[AI generated]

The event involves AI systems (autonomous driving and robotics AI) and their planned use, but no actual harm or incidents have occurred yet. The article highlights the potential for these AI systems to be deployed in Europe soon, which could plausibly lead to AI-related incidents in the future (e.g., safety risks from autonomous vehicles). Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard because it describes credible future risks from the development and use of AI systems, but no current incident or harm is reported.[AI generated]

The event explicitly involves AI systems (Meta's AI language model Llama) trained on copyrighted works without authorization, which constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights (harm category c). The unions' demand to stop using these datasets and the threat of legal action indicate that the harm has already occurred due to the AI system's development and use. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's development and use have directly led to a breach of legal obligations protecting intellectual property rights. The event is not merely a potential risk or a complementary update but a concrete incident of harm related to AI.[AI generated]

The Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) system in Samsung smart TVs is an AI system that collects and analyzes user viewing data. The legal dispute arose because of the way this AI system collected and used data without sufficient user notification, constituting a violation of privacy rights. The settlement and lawsuit withdrawal indicate that harm related to rights violations had occurred. The AI system's use directly led to this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The event is not merely a governance response or complementary information because the core issue is the realized harm from the AI system's data collection practices.[AI generated]

The event involves the use of AI systems in the context of data collection and processing related to children, which raises concerns about privacy and data protection. However, the article does not report any actual harm or data breach that has occurred; rather, it focuses on potential risks and the initiation of inquiries to prevent misuse. Therefore, this situation represents a plausible risk of harm due to AI system use but no realized harm yet. The main focus is on governance and regulatory response to these potential risks, making it primarily a case of addressing an AI Hazard and related governance actions. Since the event centers on potential risks and regulatory inquiries rather than an actual incident of harm, it is best classified as an AI Hazard.[AI generated]

The event involves an AI system (Google's generative AI service Gemini AI) and its integration with cloud API keys. The misuse of these keys can lead to unauthorized access to AI services, resulting in potential harm such as data exposure (harm to property and possibly to communities) and financial damage (mounting AI bills). This constitutes harm directly linked to the use of an AI system, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident.[AI generated]

The event involves the use of AI systems to generate harmful content that is actively disseminated, constituting a direct harm to communities through misinformation and manipulation during an election, which is a violation of rights and harms societal trust. The AI system's use in generating and spreading this content directly leads to harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized (not just potential), as the content is already being spread and engagement has occurred. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.[AI generated]

The software bug is part of an AI system or advanced software controlling vehicle functions related to trailer operation. The malfunction directly affects vehicle safety features, increasing the risk of accidents, which constitutes harm to persons (injury or harm to health). Since the AI system's malfunction has directly led to a safety risk and potential harm, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.[AI generated]

The article discusses the use and potential misuse of AI systems to generate and spread fake news that can disrupt political and election order, which constitutes harm to communities and democratic processes. However, it does not report a specific incident where AI-generated fake news has already caused harm; rather, it focuses on the risk and the government's planned responses. Therefore, this is best classified as an AI Hazard, as the AI system's involvement could plausibly lead to harm but no concrete incident is described.[AI generated]

An AI system was used to generate a realistic video impersonating the actor, constituting unauthorized use of his likeness and voice, which is a violation of personal rights and intellectual property. The harm has materialized as the actor's image was misused, and there is a plausible risk of more severe harms like AI-enabled scams. Since the misuse has already occurred and caused harm, this qualifies as an AI Incident.[AI generated]

The article explicitly states that the company is reducing its workforce by over 4000 employees due to AI automating more work and increasing efficiency. This is a direct use of AI systems causing harm to employees through job loss, which fits the definition of an AI Incident as it involves harm to groups of people resulting from the use of AI. The harm is realized, not just potential, and the AI system's role is pivotal in the decision and outcome.[AI generated]

An AI system was involved as a tool used by students to assist in writing academic papers, which is a use of AI. The event concerns the use (misuse) of AI systems in academic work. The harm here is a violation of academic integrity rules and legal consequences for the students, which can be considered a breach of obligations under applicable law (academic regulations) and a violation of rights related to fair academic conduct. Since the AI use led directly to sanctions and legal rulings, this constitutes an AI Incident involving violations of obligations and rights. The event is not merely a potential risk or a general update but a concrete case of harm resulting from AI misuse.[AI generated]

The event involves the use of AI systems (deepfake AI) to generate and spread fake news, which constitutes a violation of rights and harm to communities by undermining democratic processes. The article describes realized harm through the active spread of AI-generated fake news and the resulting law enforcement actions. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (disruption of election integrity and political order).[AI generated]

Tesla's Full Self-Driving is an AI system performing autonomous driving tasks. The event involves its use in real-world trials under supervision, with the goal of verifying safety and operational readiness. Since no harm or malfunction is reported, and the trials are conducted within a regulatory framework to prevent harm, this is a potential risk scenario rather than an actual incident. The event fits the definition of an AI Hazard because the AI system's use could plausibly lead to harm if issues arise during or after deployment, but no harm has yet materialized.[AI generated]

The article discusses the potential misuse of AI technology (deepfake creation) that could lead to harm, specifically violations of privacy and abuse targeting women and girls. Since no actual harm or incident is reported, but the government is responding to the plausible risk of harm by proposing new offences, this fits the definition of an AI Hazard. The AI system's use (deepfake generation) could plausibly lead to violations of rights and harm to individuals, but the event is about preventing such harm through legal measures, not about a realized incident.[AI generated]

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI tools in the company's reorganization that made a job position superfluous, leading to the employee's dismissal. This dismissal is a realized harm affecting labor rights and employment, which falls under violations of labor rights and harm to individuals. The court ruling confirms the legitimacy of the dismissal but does not negate the fact that AI use contributed to the harm. Hence, this is an AI Incident due to the direct link between AI use and realized harm (job loss).[AI generated]

The article explicitly involves an AI system (Grok, a generative AI model integrated into X) whose use has directly led to significant harm: the creation and widespread dissemination of sexual deepfakes without consent, including child sexual abuse images. This constitutes violations of human rights and breaches of legal protections against sexual abuse and privacy violations. The harm is realized and ongoing, with documented psychological impacts on victims and legal actions being taken. The AI system's development and use have facilitated this harm, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.[AI generated]

The article explicitly involves AI systems: AI tools generating videos and YouTube's AI recommendation algorithm promoting them. The harm described is cognitive overload, misinformation, and developmental disruption in young children, which is a direct harm to health and communities. The harm is occurring as children are actively exposed to and influenced by these videos. The article provides concrete examples and expert opinions on the negative impact, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. Although some mitigation steps are mentioned, the primary focus is on the harm caused, not on the response, so it is not Complementary Information. The harm is realized, not just potential, so it is not an AI Hazard. Therefore, the event is best classified as an AI Incident.[AI generated]

The AI road safety cameras are explicitly described as detecting offences and triggering fines and demerit points, which directly harm drivers through financial penalties and license suspensions. The system's use has led to disputes over fairness, indicating the AI's outputs have material consequences. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (legal and financial penalties) and violations of rights (potentially unfair enforcement). The presence of the AI system is explicit, and the harms are realized, not just potential. Thus, the event is best classified as an AI Incident.[AI generated]