What’s reasonably practicable? Some extracts from a legal appeal concerning a workplace fatality prosecution, with a focus on the interpretation of ‘reasonably practicable’. The prosecution related to a tow truck tilt tray which had been modified so that the headboard no longer tilted with the tray, but remained in place. Some toolboxes were then placed… Continue reading ‘Reasonably practicable’ in the context of an Australian workplace fatality prosecution
Large language models powered system safety assessment: applying STPA and FRAM
An AI, STPA and FRAM walk into a bar…ok, that’s all I’ve got. This study used ChatGPT-4o and Gemini to apply STPA and FRAM to analyse: “liquid hydrogen (LH2) aircraft refuelling process, which is not a well- known process, that presents unique challenges in hazard identification”. One of several studies applying LLMs to safety… Continue reading Large language models powered system safety assessment: applying STPA and FRAM
Call Me A Jerk: Persuading AI to Comply with Objectionable Requests
Can LLMs be persuaded to act like d*cks? A really interesting study from Meincke et al. found human persuasion techniques also worked on LLMs. They tested how “classic persuasion principles like authority, commitment, and unity can dramatically increase an AI’s likelihood to comply with requests they are designed to refuse”. I’m drawing from their study… Continue reading Call Me A Jerk: Persuading AI to Comply with Objectionable Requests
In safety law: is risk & safety the same? What role of injury causation needs to be proven?
In law, is safety & risk the same? Is causation a factor? I knocked this quickly up over the weekend (so expect mistakes…). It’s a legal appeal case – they explore whether, in the legal sense, safety and risk are different, if the Crown has to prove the causative agents, and the extent to which… Continue reading In safety law: is risk & safety the same? What role of injury causation needs to be proven?
Safe As podcast e18: When emotion leads risk – risk as feelings and not just numbers
Risk in safety is often framed in matrices as likelihood x consequences. It holds an allure of (semi)objectivity – the numbers are the numbers. But what is the role of emotion and feelings within our risk judgements? Today’s article argues that what we ‘feel’ about risk precedes and influences what we ‘think’ about risk. This… Continue reading Safe As podcast e18: When emotion leads risk – risk as feelings and not just numbers
Safety audits and major disasters: are they connected?
Are audits implicated in major accidents? My second audit paper reviewed thousands of major accident reports, exploring how investigators framed the role of audits prior to the accident. Surprisingly, very few investigations mentioned the role of audits – positively, negatively or neutrally (just 44 reports out of thousands). Check out the full paper below. We… Continue reading Safety audits and major disasters: are they connected?
Meta-analysis of studies examining long-term construction injury rates
This 2012 meta-analysis evaluated global construction injuries and fatalities. 55 studies were included, having at least two measurements of injuries with a medium to long-term period (eg longitudinal). Data is a little dated compared to some other research, since it included studies from 1987 – 2010. Key findings: · “All injuries significantly decreased between the first… Continue reading Meta-analysis of studies examining long-term construction injury rates
Bullshit vs Botshit: what’s the difference?
A couple more extracts from Hannigan et al.’s paper on ‘botshit. Bullshit is “Human-generated content that has no regard for the truth, which a human then uses in communication and decision-making tasks”. Botshit is “Chatbot generated content that is not grounded in truth (i.e., hallucinations) and is then uncritically used by a human in communication… Continue reading Bullshit vs Botshit: what’s the difference?
AI, bullshitting and botshit
“LLMs are great at mimicry and bad at facts, making them a beguiling and amoral technology for bullshitting” From a paper about ‘botshit’ – summary in a couple of weeks. Source: Hannigan, T. R., McCarthy, I. P., & Spicer, A. (2024). Beware of botshit: How to manage the epistemic risks of generative chatbots. Business Horizons, 67(5), 471-486.… Continue reading AI, bullshitting and botshit
Enhancing critical control management using bowties for high consequence risks at Rio Tinto
This paper explores Rio Tinto’s evolving approach and adaptation of their Critical Control Framework. They integrated the most useful parts from ICMM, Energy Institute, & CCPS. The paper was motivated by an ‘uplift program’ at Rio, involving a complete review and alignment of their approach to controls and critical control management, including definitions and improved… Continue reading Enhancing critical control management using bowties for high consequence risks at Rio Tinto
SafetyInsights.org 