The risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) concern academics, auditors, policymakers, AI companies, and the public. Researchers, policymakers, and technology companies discuss AI risks using inconsistent terminology—the same word may describe different problems, while different words describe identical concerns. This fragmentation impedes coordinated responses to AI challenges. We address this by creating the AI Risk Repository: a living database of 1,725 risks extracted from 74 existing taxonomies and frameworks. We organize these risks using two complementary classification systems. The Causal Taxonomy classifies risks by their origins: which entity causes them (human or AI), whether intentional, and when they occur (before or after deployment). The Domain Taxonomy classifies risks by their effects across seven areas, from discrimination and privacy violations to misinformation and weapons development. This shared reference enables more coordinated approaches to discussing, researching, auditing, and governing AI systems across sectors and jurisdictions.

The number of AI-related governance documents is rapidly proliferating, but what risks, mitigations, and other concepts do these documents actually cover? MIT AI Risk Initiative researchers Simon Mylius, Peter Slattery, Yan Zhu, Alexander Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel, and Neil Thompson teamed up with CSET’s Mina Narayanan and Adrian Thinnyun to pilot an approach to map over 950 AI governance documents to several extensible taxonomies. These taxonomies cover AI risks and actors, industry sectors targeted, and other AI-related concepts, complementing AGORA’s thematic taxonomy of risk factors, harms, governance strategies, incentives for compliance, and application areas.

Organizations and governments that develop, deploy, use, and govern AI must coordinate on effective risk mitigation. However, the landscape of AI risk mitigation frameworks is fragmented, uses inconsistent terminology, and has gaps in coverage. This paper introduces a preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy to organize AI risk mitigations and provide a common frame of reference. The Taxonomy was developed through a rapid evidence scan of 13 AI risk mitigation frameworks published between 2023-2025, which were extracted into a living database of 831 AI risk mitigations. The mitigations were iteratively clustered & coded to create the Taxonomy. The preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy organizes mitigations into four categories and 23 subcategories: (1) Governance & Oversight: Formal organizational structures and policy frameworks that establish human oversight mechanisms and decision protocols; (2) Technical & Security: Technical, physical, and engineering safeguards that secure AI systems and constrain model behaviors; (3) Operational Process: processes and management frameworks governing AI system deployment, usage, monitoring, incident handling, and validation; and (4) Transparency & Accountability: formal disclosure practices and verification mechanisms that communicate AI system information and enable external scrutiny. The rapid evidence scan and taxonomy construction also revealed several cases where terms like 'risk management' and 'red teaming' are used widely but refer to different responsible actors, actions, and mechanisms of action to reduce risk. This Taxonomy and associated mitigation database, while preliminary, offers a starting point for collation and synthesis of AI risk mitigations. It also offers an accessible, structured way for different actors in the AI ecosystem to discuss and coordinate action to reduce risks from AI.