Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11196v5
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 23:43:22 GMT
- Title: Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework
- Authors: Sangchul Park,
- Abstract summary: This paper proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework for regulating artificial intelligence (AI)
To ensure contextuality, the framework bifurcates the AI life cycle into two phases: learning and deployment for specific tasks, instead of defining foundation or general-purpose models.
To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international standards for measuring and mitigating risks.
- Score: 0.9622882291833615
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: As debates on potential societal harm from artificial intelligence (AI) culminate in legislation and international norms, a global divide is emerging in both AI regulatory frameworks and international governance structures. In terms of local regulatory frameworks, the European Union (E.U.), Canada, and Brazil follow a horizontal or lateral approach that postulates the homogeneity of AI, seeks to identify common causes of harm, and demands uniform human interventions. In contrast, the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom (U.K.), Israel, and Switzerland (and potentially China) have pursued a context-specific or modular approach, tailoring regulations to the specific use cases of AI systems. This paper argues for a context-specific approach to effectively address evolving risks in diverse mission-critical domains, while avoiding social costs associated with one-size-fits-all approaches. However, to enhance the systematicity and interoperability of international norms and accelerate global harmonization, this paper proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework. To ensure contextuality, the framework (i) bifurcates the AI life cycle into two phases: learning and deployment for specific tasks, instead of defining foundation or general-purpose models; and (ii) categorizes these tasks based on their application and interaction with humans as follows: autonomous, discriminative (allocative, punitive, and cognitive), and generative AI. To ensure coherency, each category is assigned specific regulatory objectives replacing 2010s vintage AI ethics. To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international standards for measuring and mitigating risks.
Related papers
- AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024): From Government Regulations to Corporate Policies [88.32153122712478]
We identify 314 unique risk categories organized into a four-tiered taxonomy.
At the highest level, this taxonomy encompasses System & Operational Risks, Content Safety Risks, Societal Risks, and Legal & Rights Risks.
We aim to advance AI safety through information sharing across sectors and the promotion of best practices in risk mitigation for generative AI models and systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-25T18:13:05Z) - Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment.
The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z) - 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) - Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI.
The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees.
We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z) - Resolving Ethics Trade-offs in Implementing Responsible AI [18.894725256708128]
We cover five approaches for addressing the tensions via trade-offs, ranging from rudimentary to complex.
None of the approaches is likely to be appropriate for all organisations, systems, or applications.
We propose a framework which consists of: (i) proactive identification of tensions, (ii) prioritisation and weighting of ethics aspects, (iii) justification and documentation of trade-off decisions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-16T04:14:23Z) - Generative AI in EU Law: Liability, Privacy, Intellectual Property, and Cybersecurity [1.9806397201363817]
This paper delves into the legal and regulatory implications of Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) in the European Union context.
It analyzes aspects of liability, privacy, intellectual property, and cybersecurity.
It proposes recommendations to ensure the safe and compliant deployment of generative models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-14T19:16:29Z) - Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair
Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
"Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture.
This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias.
In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z) - Measuring Value Alignment [12.696227679697493]
This paper introduces a novel formalism to quantify the alignment between AI systems and human values.
By utilizing this formalism, AI developers and ethicists can better design and evaluate AI systems to ensure they operate in harmony with human values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-23T12:30:06Z) - 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) - Regulating Artificial Intelligence: Proposal for a Global Solution [6.037312672659089]
We argue that AI-related challenges cannot be tackled effectively without sincere international coordination.
We propose the establishment of an international AI governance framework organized around a new AI regulatory agency.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-22T09:24:07Z)
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.