Weekly reading · methodology v1.0

Window ending March 3, 2025

Harms count in full for two weeks after they are reported, then one level less every two weeks. The control floor looks at reports from Feb. 2, 2025 through March 3, 2025. A selected catalogue of reported AI incidents, reviewed through Oct. 10, 2026. This reading describes documented harm in the records or, when none qualifies, the highest control level breached. It is not a forecast or a measure of all AI activity.

Current recalculation

Control failures only · No qualifying harm. The reading is the highest control level breached: 3, by 1 record. It is a level, not a count.

Recalculated from the catalogue in this build. Historical backcasts were not published at the time.

Published at the time

No publication snapshot exists for this week.

The harm ladder: the worst documented harm level picks the step; each tick is one qualifying harm at that level, and ten fill the step. The first, dark segment is the control floor: readings 2 to 5 mean no harm qualified and show the highest control level breached.

This is a backcast from the current catalogue. It was not a reading published at the time.

Records behind this reading

2 selected records; 0 documented external harms counting (1 qualifying). Records and ratings below reflect the current catalogue.

No harm counting that week. The reading is the highest control level breached, 3: a level, not a count (PI-0002). 2 records reported in the last 30 days.

Records behind this reading · 1

PI-0002 · Browser agent bought groceries on a reporter's card without asking for confirmationControl level 3, exceeded its permissions: sets the reading

Only these records move the reading. How it is calculated

PI-0002
Browser agent bought groceries on a reporter's card without asking for confirmationFeb. 7, 2025 · Negligible harm · no longer counting · Deployment
PI-0001
Reasoning models edited a chess game's board file to beat a stronger engine in a research testFeb. 18, 2025 · No harm reported · Controlled test

Sources

These links support the records above. Source availability and conclusions may change.

The Washington Post: I let ChatGPT's new 'agent' manage my life. It spent $31 on a dozen eggs.Cited in PI-0002
Anchorage Daily News: I let ChatGPT's new agent manage my life. It spent $31 on a dozen eggs (Washington Post, reprinted)Cited in PI-0002
AI Incident Database: AI Incident Database entity: InstacartCited in PI-0002
arXiv (Palisade Research): Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning modelsCited in PI-0001
arXiv (Palisade Research): Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning models (revised v3)Cited in PI-0001
Popular Science: AI tries to cheat at chess when it's losingCited in PI-0001
Gigazine: AI cheats when it's about to lose at chessCited in PI-0001
Import AI (Jack Clark): Import AI 401: Cheating reasoning modelsCited in PI-0001

Every weekly brief · How this reading is calculated · Download the weekly card