A risk-based approach to assessing liability risk for AI-driven harms considering EU liability directive

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11697v1
• Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:52:43 GMT
• Title: A risk-based approach to assessing liability risk for AI-driven harms considering EU liability directive
• Authors: Sundaraparipurnan Narayanan, Mark Potkewitz
• Abstract summary: Historical instances of harm caused by AI have led to European Union establishing an AI Liability Directive. The future ability of provider to contest a product liability claim will depend on good practices adopted in designing, developing, and maintaining AI systems. This paper provides a risk-based approach to examining liability for AI-driven injuries.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence can cause inconvenience, harm, or other unintended consequences in various ways, including those that arise from defects or malfunctions in the AI system itself or those caused by its use or misuse. Responsibility for AI harms or unintended consequences must be addressed to hold accountable the people who caused such harms and ensure that victims receive compensation for any damages or losses they may have sustained. Historical instances of harm caused by AI have led to European Union establishing an AI Liability Directive. The directive aims to lay down a uniform set of rules for access to information, delineate the duty and level of care required for AI development and use, and clarify the burden of proof for damages or harms caused by AI systems, establishing broader protection for victims. The future ability of provider to contest a product liability claim will depend on good practices adopted in designing, developing, and maintaining AI systems in the market. This paper provides a risk-based approach to examining liability for AI-driven injuries. It also provides an overview of existing liability approaches, insights into limitations and complexities in these approaches, and a detailed self-assessment questionnaire to assess the risk associated with liability for a specific AI system from a provider's perspective.

Related papers

• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  Particip-AI is a framework to gather current and future AI use cases and their harms and benefits from non-expert public. We gather responses from 295 demographically diverse participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Testing autonomous vehicles and AI: perspectives and challenges from cybersecurity, transparency, robustness and fairness [53.91018508439669]
  The study explores the complexities of integrating Artificial Intelligence into Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) It examines the challenges introduced by AI components and the impact on testing procedures. The paper identifies significant challenges and suggests future directions for research and development of AI in AV technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:29:42Z)
• What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems [1.0549609328807565]
  It is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating. This paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T13:45:36Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)
• 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)
• AI Hazard Management: A framework for the systematic management of root causes for AI risks [0.0]
  This paper introduces the AI Hazard Management (AIHM) framework. It provides a structured process to systematically identify, assess, and treat AI hazards. It builds upon an AI hazard list from a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T15:55:50Z)
• Statutory Professions in AI governance and their consequences for explainable AI [2.363388546004777]
  Intentional and accidental harms arising from the use of AI have impacted the health, safety and rights of individuals. We propose that a statutory profession framework be introduced as a necessary part of the AI regulatory framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T08:51:28Z)
• AI Liability Insurance With an Example in AI-Powered E-diagnosis System [22.102728605081534]
  We use an AI-powered E-diagnosis system as an example to study AI liability insurance. We show that AI liability insurance can act as a regulatory mechanism to incentivize compliant behaviors and serve as a certificate of high-quality AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T21:03:47Z)
• Liability regimes in the age of AI: a use-case driven analysis of the burden of proof [1.7510020208193926]
  New emerging technologies powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) have the potential to disruptively transform our societies for the better. But there is growing concerns about certain intrinsic characteristics of these methodologies that carry potential risks to both safety and fundamental rights. This paper presents three case studies, as well as the methodology to reach them, that illustrate these difficulties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-03T13:55:36Z)
• Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment [71.9309995623067]
  NeurIPS 2020 requested that research paper submissions include impact statements on "potential nefarious uses and the consequences of failure" We argue that frameworks of harms must be context-aware and consider a wider range of potential stakeholders, system affordances, as well as viable proxies for assessing harms in the widest sense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-26T18:09:52Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

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.