Certified: The ISACA AAIR Audio Course

A I systems can sound impressively confident even when they are wrong, and that confidence is exactly why safety testing deserves its own focused attention. In this episode, we concentrate on safety failures that show up in real deployments and cause real harm, especially when new users treat outputs as trustworthy by default. Safety failures are not always dramatic, and they do not always look like a cyberattack; they often look like a normal answer that quietly pushes someone toward a bad decision. To make this practical, we will anchor on three common safety failure families: hallucinations, toxicity, and unsafe recommendations. Artificial Intelligence (A I) safety testing is the discipline of deliberately looking for these failures before the system reaches people, then repeating those checks as the system changes over time. The goal is not to scare you into thinking all A I is dangerous, but to give you a clear way to think about how harm happens and how a responsible team tests for it.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A useful starting point is to define what we mean by a safety failure, because beginners sometimes assume safety only means the system is not hacked. In this context, a safety failure is any behavior that can reasonably lead to harm, including harm to a person, harm to an organization, or harm to trust, even if the system is operating exactly as designed. Safety failures often arise because the system is optimized to be helpful and fluent, not to be cautious and correct in every case. They also arise because the system is placed into workflows where humans may be tired, rushed, or inexperienced, which increases the chance they will act on a flawed output. Safety testing therefore includes both the model’s behavior and the user experience that surrounds that behavior, because the same output can be harmless in one context and dangerous in another. Another beginner misunderstanding is that a warning message makes a system safe, when in reality warnings are weak controls if the system keeps producing risky content. When you test for safety failures, you are looking for predictable patterns of harm and building evidence that you can prevent or contain them.

Hallucinations are a major safety concern because they often look like knowledge, and that makes them easy to miss until they cause damage. A hallucination is when the system produces information that is not grounded in the input, not supported by evidence, or not true, while presenting it as if it were accurate. In everyday use, hallucinations can look like invented facts, fake citations, incorrect technical steps, or confident explanations of events that never happened. For beginners, it helps to understand that hallucinations are not always random; they are often the model’s attempt to complete a pattern and remain coherent, even when it does not actually know. The danger grows when the topic is high stakes, such as medical guidance, legal obligations, security advice, or any instruction that could cause real-world harm if wrong. Hallucinations also create audit and compliance risk when they lead to inaccurate records or misleading communications. Testing for hallucinations means you are not asking whether the model can be wrong, because it can, but rather when it is likely to be wrong and how it signals uncertainty.

A practical way to test hallucinations is to focus on situations where the system is likely to guess, because those are the conditions where confident fabrication is most tempting. Ambiguous prompts, missing context, and questions that require precise details are all common triggers, and they show up constantly in real user behavior. Another common trigger is when users ask for a summary of a document, but the document is incomplete, inconsistent, or contains gaps, because the model may try to smooth over the gaps by inventing connective details. Hallucinations also show up when users ask the model to provide sources, names, dates, or steps that sound plausible but are not verified. When teams test for hallucinations, they should observe whether the system distinguishes between what it knows from input and what it is inferring, and whether it can refuse or ask for clarification when the input is insufficient. A beginner-friendly way to think about this is that a safe system should be willing to say I do not know rather than to pretend. If your safety testing never pressures the system into uncertainty, you will miss the moments where hallucinations are most likely to occur.

Reducing hallucination risk also requires understanding the difference between harmless errors and dangerous errors, because not every mistake carries the same consequence. If a system invents a minor detail in a casual summary, the harm might be limited, but if it invents a policy requirement or a security control, the harm can spread quickly. The risk is amplified when people treat the system as authoritative, such as when a new analyst relies on it for incident response guidance or when a manager relies on it for compliance interpretations. Safety testing should therefore include realistic user roles and realistic decision contexts, because a hallucination that seems obvious to an expert may be invisible to a beginner. Another important point is that hallucinations can be socially engineered, where users intentionally try to coax the system into inventing content, and the system may comply because it is trained to be cooperative. A well-tested system should demonstrate safe behavior under both accidental ambiguity and intentional pressure. When you combine hallucination testing with thoughtful user guidance, you create a safer relationship between human and system, where verification becomes normal rather than optional.

Toxicity is a different category of safety failure, but it is just as important because it can cause direct harm to people and indirect harm to an organization’s culture and reputation. Toxicity can include hateful content, harassment, threats, degrading stereotypes, or content that encourages discrimination or violence. Beginners sometimes assume toxicity only matters for public chatbots, but toxicity can appear inside internal systems too, especially when the system generates text based on user prompts or retrieved documents. Toxicity can also show up in subtle ways, like biased language, microaggressions, or tone that is unnecessarily hostile, which can still harm users and create a hostile environment. Another key idea is that toxicity is not always obvious profanity; it can be the system making assumptions about a person’s intelligence, character, or worth based on minimal information. Safety testing for toxicity should examine both direct toxicity and contextual toxicity, such as whether the system responds differently to similar prompts that reference different groups. The goal is to ensure the system does not become a channel for harm, even when users try to push it in that direction.

Testing for toxicity requires you to consider both intentional misuse and unintentional triggering, because users do not always know what will cause a harmful output. Some users will test boundaries as a joke, and others will reference sensitive topics like identity, trauma, or conflict in good faith, expecting a supportive response. A safety test should evaluate whether the system can handle those sensitive contexts without producing harmful language or validating harmful assumptions. It should also examine whether the system can refuse requests that are clearly abusive without escalating the situation or providing partial harmful content. Another important angle is that toxicity risk can be amplified by personalization, because systems that mirror a user’s tone can mirror harmful tone too. If the system is trained or tuned on internal data, toxicity can reflect internal culture, which is a risk many organizations do not anticipate. Safety testing therefore becomes a mirror that reveals issues you may not want to see, but need to see. When a system handles sensitive topics, safety testing is a duty of care, not just a brand protection measure.

Unsafe recommendations are the third category in the title, and they often cause the most practical harm because they translate into action. An unsafe recommendation is guidance that, if followed, could reasonably lead to injury, legal trouble, security compromise, or other serious negative outcomes. This can include advising someone to bypass safeguards, to ignore warnings, to take steps that are risky in a real environment, or to rely on the system in situations where human expertise is required. Unsafe recommendations can also include subtle nudges, like encouraging a user to share sensitive information, to trust a claim without verification, or to make a decision based on incomplete context. For beginners, it helps to notice that unsafe recommendations are not always malicious; they can be the model attempting to be helpful by giving direct steps even when it does not have enough information to do so safely. This is especially risky in cybersecurity contexts, where advice about incident response, access control, or system recovery can have real consequences. Safety testing should therefore treat recommendations as potential instructions, not just text. If a system can influence decisions, you must test whether it can influence decisions safely.

Testing unsafe recommendations requires you to look at the boundary between general information and situational instruction, because risk grows when guidance becomes specific. A model might safely explain what an incident is, but it becomes risky when it tells someone exactly what to do in a live environment without knowing details like system configuration, business constraints, or safety requirements. A beginner might not realize what information is missing, so they might follow advice that is inappropriate for their context. Safety testing should therefore include prompts that resemble real user questions, including questions asked under stress, because stressed users often want direct answers and may not ask follow-up questions. It should also test for escalation behavior, meaning the system should encourage seeking qualified help or following established procedures when stakes are high. Another important test is checking whether the system recognizes restricted areas, such as instructing wrongdoing or providing guidance that violates policy. A safe system must be able to refuse or redirect when the request itself is unsafe. When you validate this behavior, you are protecting users from the system’s desire to be helpful at any cost.

It is helpful to connect these safety failures back to the lifecycle, because the best safety testing is not a single event right before launch. If you tune the system to be more assertive, hallucination and unsafe recommendation risk can increase, so you need tests that detect those shifts. If you change data sources or retrieval behavior, toxicity or biased language can enter through the content the model sees, so you need tests that reflect the new content mix. If you add new integrations, the consequences of bad outputs can increase because the system’s words may trigger actions or influence workflows more directly. That is why safety testing should be treated like a recurring checkpoint, tied to changes in model version, configuration, data, and use case scope. Beginners often think of testing as a gate, but a better mental model is that testing is a guardrail that must be maintained as the road changes. Safety failures can emerge gradually as systems evolve, not only at the beginning. When teams build safety testing into their change process, they reduce the chance of shipping unseen regressions. This is also where evidence and artifacts matter, because safety claims must be supported by test records, not by confidence.

Safety testing also has a human side, because the same model behavior can be safe or unsafe depending on how users interpret it. If the system produces answers with a tone of certainty, beginners may assume the answer is verified, even when it is not. If the system produces a long explanation, users may confuse length with truth, which is a common cognitive trap. Safety testing should therefore pay attention to how the system communicates uncertainty, limitations, and boundaries. A safe system does not only avoid harmful content; it also guides users toward safe decision-making by setting expectations. Another key concept is that humans will use shortcuts, especially when tired, so safety design should not rely on users doing perfect verification every time. Safety testing should examine whether the system encourages verification for critical claims and whether it avoids presenting risky guesses as facts. This is where product design and governance connect to model behavior, because safety is a system property, not just a model property. When you test the combined human and system interaction, you get a more realistic picture of risk. That realism is what keeps safety work grounded and effective.

Beginners also benefit from understanding that safety testing involves tradeoffs, because overly strict systems can become unusable and drive users toward unsafe workarounds. If a system refuses too often or responds with generic warnings, users may ignore it or seek alternative tools that are less controlled. On the other hand, if a system is too permissive, it may produce harmful outputs that create immediate risk. Good safety testing helps teams find a balance by showing where strictness reduces harm and where it unnecessarily blocks legitimate use. This balance should be guided by the impact of the use case, because high-impact contexts justify stronger restrictions. It should also be guided by what users actually do, because testing unrealistic prompts can produce unrealistic conclusions. Another tradeoff is between speed and caution, because adding safety checks can increase latency or complexity, which some product teams resist. Safety testing provides evidence that the added friction is justified by reduced harm. When you can explain these tradeoffs clearly, you can participate in governance conversations without treating safety as either absolute or optional. A mature safety program makes tradeoffs explicit and monitors their outcomes over time.

To make safety testing effective, organizations also need a feedback loop that connects real-world outcomes back into testing, because the most valuable test cases often come from real mistakes. When users report a harmful output, that example should become part of the safety test set so the system is less likely to repeat it. When monitoring shows a pattern of unsafe recommendations in a particular context, safety tests should be expanded to cover that context. This is how safety work becomes continuous improvement rather than a one-time compliance event. Beginners sometimes assume that if you test thoroughly once, you are done, but real systems change and real users surprise you. A feedback loop also improves fairness because it can reveal harms that were not anticipated during design, especially for underrepresented users. It improves security because it can reveal abuse patterns that attackers discover after launch. Most importantly, it improves trust because it shows the organization responds to harm with learning and correction, not denial. Safety testing that evolves with experience is one of the clearest signs of responsible governance. When feedback becomes part of the lifecycle, safety stops being theoretical and becomes operational.

As we close, testing for safety failures is about deliberately searching for the ways an A I system can hurt people or organizations, then using evidence to prevent those harms from becoming routine. Hallucinations threaten safety by presenting invented or unsupported information with confidence, toxicity threatens safety by generating harmful language and reinforcing discrimination, and unsafe recommendations threaten safety by pushing users toward actions that can create real consequences. Effective safety testing pressures the system into uncertainty, explores boundary conditions, and evaluates how the system behaves under both accidental ambiguity and intentional misuse. It also recognizes that safety is shaped by human interpretation, so communication, uncertainty signaling, and user expectations matter alongside model behavior. When safety testing is repeated across lifecycle changes and fed by real-world feedback, it becomes a durable control rather than a momentary gate. For brand-new learners, the key takeaway is that safety failures are predictable enough to test for, but only if you look for them intentionally and keep looking as the system evolves. When you treat safety testing as a discipline of curiosity and evidence, you move from hoping the system is safe to knowing where it is safe and how you will keep it that way.