Antitrust and Artificial Intelligence (AAI): Antitrust Vigilance Lifecycle and AI Legal Reasoning Autonomy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2012.13016v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 22:58:51 GMT
• Title: Antitrust and Artificial Intelligence (AAI): Antitrust Vigilance Lifecycle and AI Legal Reasoning Autonomy
• Authors: Lance Eliot
• Abstract summary: There is an increasing interest in the entwining of the field of antitrust with the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) This study focuses on the synergies entangling antitrust and AI.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: There is an increasing interest in the entwining of the field of antitrust with the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), frequently referred to jointly as Antitrust and AI (AAI) in the research literature. This study focuses on the synergies entangling antitrust and AI, doing so to extend the literature by proffering the primary ways that these two fields intersect, consisting of: (1) the application of antitrust to AI, and (2) the application of AI to antitrust. To date, most of the existing research on this intermixing has concentrated on the former, namely the application of antitrust to AI, entailing how the marketplace will be altered by the advent of AI and the potential for adverse antitrust behaviors arising accordingly. Opting to explore more deeply the other side of this coin, this research closely examines the application of AI to antitrust and establishes an antitrust vigilance lifecycle to which AI is predicted to be substantively infused for purposes of enabling and bolstering antitrust detection, enforcement, and post-enforcement monitoring. Furthermore, a gradual and incremental injection of AI into antitrust vigilance is anticipated to occur as significant advances emerge amidst the Levels of Autonomy (LoA) for AI Legal Reasoning (AILR).

Related papers

• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Exploiting AI for Attacks: On the Interplay between Adversarial AI and Offensive AI [18.178555463870214]
  AI as a target of attacks (Adversarial AI') and AI as a means to launch attacks on any target (Offensive AI')<n>This article explores two emerging AI-related threats and the interplay between them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T14:21:01Z)
• Responsible Development of Offensive AI [0.0]
  This study aims to establish priorities that balance societal benefits against risks. The two forms of offensive AI evaluated in this study are vulnerability detection agents, which solve Capture- The-Flag challenges, and AI-powered malware.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T15:37:38Z)
• AI Risk Management Should Incorporate Both Safety and Security [185.68738503122114]
  We argue that stakeholders in AI risk management should be aware of the nuances, synergies, and interplay between safety and security. We introduce a unified reference framework to clarify the differences and interplay between AI safety and AI security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T21:00:47Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence: A Structured Literature Review [0.0]
  The EU has recently issued several publications emphasizing the necessity of trust in AI. This highlights the urgent need for international regulation. This paper introduces a comprehensive and, to our knowledge, the first unified definition of responsible AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T17:01:13Z)
• A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming [124.89885800509505]
  Some researchers fear that conducting such research or releasing their findings will result in account suspensions or legal reprisal. We propose that major AI developers commit to providing a legal and technical safe harbor. We believe these commitments are a necessary step towards more inclusive and unimpeded community efforts to tackle the risks of generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T20:55:08Z)
• Overconfident and Unconfident AI Hinder Human-AI Collaboration [5.480154202794587]
  This study examines the effects of uncalibrated AI confidence on users' trust in AI, AI advice adoption, and collaboration outcomes. Deficiency of trust calibration support exacerbates this issue by making it harder to detect uncalibrated confidence. Our findings highlight the importance of AI confidence calibration for enhancing human-AI collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T13:16:30Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Bridging the Gap Between Explainable AI and Uncertainty Quantification to Enhance Trustability [0.0]
  Two research directions, namely Explainable AI and Uncertainty Quantification are becoming more and more important, but have been so far never combined and jointly explored. I show how both research areas provide potential for combination, why more research should be done in this direction and how this would lead to an increase in trustability in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T10:53:58Z)
• AI and Ethics -- Operationalising Responsible AI [13.781989627894813]
  Building and maintaining public trust in AI has been identified as the key to successful and sustainable innovation. This chapter discusses the challenges related to operationalizing ethical AI principles and presents an integrated view that covers high-level ethical AI principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-19T00:55:40Z)
• The Sanction of Authority: Promoting Public Trust in AI [4.729969944853141]
  We argue that public distrust of AI originates from the under-development of a regulatory ecosystem that would guarantee the trustworthiness of the AIs that pervade society. We elaborate the pivotal role of externally auditable AI documentation within this model and the work to be done to ensure it is effective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-22T22:01:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.