Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a key technology, driving advancements across a range of applications. Its integration into modern autonomous systems requires assuring safety. However, the challenge of assuring safety in systems that incorporate AI components is substantial. The lack of concrete specifications, and also the complexity of both the operational environment and the system itself, leads to various aspects of uncertain behavior and complicates the derivation of convincing evidence for system safety. Nonetheless, scholars proposed to thoroughly analyze and mitigate AI-specific insufficiencies, so-called AI safety concerns, which yields essential evidence supporting a convincing assurance case. In this paper, we build upon this idea and propose the so-called Landscape of AI Safety Concerns, a novel methodology designed to support the creation of safety assurance cases for AI-based systems by systematically demonstrating the absence of AI safety concerns. The methodology's application is illustrated through a case study involving a driverless regional train, demonstrating its practicality and effectiveness.

AI-Based Safety-Critical Systems (AI-SCS) are being increasingly deployed in the real world. These can pose a risk of harm to people and the environment. Reducing that risk is an overarching priority during development and operation. As more AI-SCS become autonomous, a layer of risk management via human intervention has been removed. Following an accident it will be important to identify causal contributions and the different responsible actors behind those to learn from mistakes and prevent similar future events. Many authors have commented on the "responsibility gap" where it is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. This is due to the complex development cycle for AI, uncertainty in AI performance, and dynamic operating environment. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating, and may not have understanding of. This cross-disciplinary paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety. We use a core concept (Actor(A) is responsible for Occurrence(O)) to create role responsibility models, producing a practical method to capture responsibility relationships and provide clarity on the previously identified responsibility issues. Our paper demonstrates the approach with two examples: a retrospective analysis of the Tempe Arizona fatal collision involving an autonomous vehicle, and a safety focused predictive role-responsibility analysis for an AI-based diabetes co-morbidity predictor. In both examples our primary focus is on safety, aiming to reduce unfair or disproportionate blame being placed on operators or developers. We present a discussion and avenues for future research.