Missing Value Chain in Generative AI Governance China as an example

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.02799v1
• Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 13:28:25 GMT
• Title: Missing Value Chain in Generative AI Governance China as an example
• Authors: Yulu Pi
• Abstract summary: China's Provisional Administrative Measures of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services came into effect in August 2023. Measure presents unclear distinctions regarding different roles in the value chain of Generative AI. Lack of distinction and clear legal status between different players in the AI value chain can have profound consequences.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We examined the world's first regulation on Generative AI, China's Provisional Administrative Measures of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services, which came into effect in August 2023. Our assessment reveals that the Measures, while recognizing the technical advances of generative AI and seeking to govern its full life cycle, presents unclear distinctions regarding different roles in the value chain of Generative AI including upstream foundation model providers and downstream deployers. The lack of distinction and clear legal status between different players in the AI value chain can have profound consequences. It can lead to ambiguity in accountability, potentially undermining the governance and overall success of AI services.

Related papers

• Agentic AI: Autonomy, Accountability, and the Algorithmic Society [0.2209921757303168]
  Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) can autonomously pursue long-term goals, make decisions, and execute complex, multi-turn. This transition from advisory roles to proactive execution challenges established legal, economic, and creative frameworks. We explore challenges in three interrelated domains: creativity and intellectual property, legal and ethical considerations, and competitive effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T03:14:59Z)
• Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents [0.0]
  ETHOS is a decentralized governance (DeGov) model leveraging Web3 technologies, including blockchain, smart contracts, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) It establishes a global registry for AI agents, enabling dynamic risk classification, proportional oversight, and automated compliance monitoring. By integrating philosophical principles of rationality, ethical grounding, and goal alignment, ETHOS aims to create a robust research agenda for promoting trust, transparency, and participatory governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-22T18:01:49Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• AI Governance and Accountability: An Analysis of Anthropic's Claude [0.0]
  This paper examines the AI governance landscape, focusing on Anthropic's Claude, a foundational AI model. We analyze Claude through the lens of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and the EU AI Act, identifying potential threats and proposing mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T23:37:06Z)
• 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)
• 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 AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future [0.0]
  The European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022. The latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels Effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and beyond. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T09:08:11Z)
• 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)
• Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices [44.67324097900778]
  Many current AI systems were found vulnerable to imperceptible attacks, biased against underrepresented groups, lacking in user privacy protection, etc. In this review, we strive to provide AI practitioners a comprehensive guide towards building trustworthy AI systems. To unify the current fragmented approaches towards trustworthy AI, we propose a systematic approach that considers the entire lifecycle of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-04T03:20:39Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.