I think there are indeed overlaps between all these things.
But I do think that the application of these terms to technological risk specifically or AI risk specifically is important enough to warrant its own entry or set of entries.
Maybe if you feel their distinctive scope is at risk of being unclear, that pushes in favour of sticking with the original AI-focused framing of the concepts, and maybe just mentioning in one place in the entry/āentries that the same terms could also be applied to technological risk more broadly? Or maybe it pushes in favour of having a single entry focused on this set of concepts as a whole and the distinctions between them (maybe called Accident, misuse, and structural risks)?
I also wouldnāt really want to say misuse risk is an instance of downside risk. One reason is that it may not be downside risk from the misuserās perspective, and another is that downside risk is often/āusually used to mean a risk of a downside from something that is or is expected to be good overall. More on this from an older post of mine:
One definition of a downside is āThe negative aspect of something otherwise regarded as good or desirableā (Lexico). By extension, I would say that, roughly speaking, a downside risk is a risk (or possibility) that there may be a negative effect of something that is good overall, or that was expected or intended to be good overall.
Also, I think I see āaccidental harmā as sufficiently covering standard uses of the term ādownside riskā that thereās not a need for a separate entry. (Though maybe a redirect would be good?)
I think there are indeed overlaps between all these things.
But I do think that the application of these terms to technological risk specifically or AI risk specifically is important enough to warrant its own entry or set of entries.
Maybe if you feel their distinctive scope is at risk of being unclear, that pushes in favour of sticking with the original AI-focused framing of the concepts, and maybe just mentioning in one place in the entry/āentries that the same terms could also be applied to technological risk more broadly? Or maybe it pushes in favour of having a single entry focused on this set of concepts as a whole and the distinctions between them (maybe called Accident, misuse, and structural risks)?
I also wouldnāt really want to say misuse risk is an instance of downside risk. One reason is that it may not be downside risk from the misuserās perspective, and another is that downside risk is often/āusually used to mean a risk of a downside from something that is or is expected to be good overall. More on this from an older post of mine:
Also, I think I see āaccidental harmā as sufficiently covering standard uses of the term ādownside riskā that thereās not a need for a separate entry. (Though maybe a redirect would be good?)