Investigating Algorithm Review Boards for Organizational Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01691v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:53:53 GMT
• Title: Investigating Algorithm Review Boards for Organizational Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance
• Authors: Emily Hadley, Alan Blatecky, and Megan Comfort
• Abstract summary: We interviewed 17 technical contributors across organization types about their experiences with internal RAI governance. We summarized the first detailed findings on algorithm review boards (ARBs) and similar review committees in practice. Our results suggest that integration with existing internal regulatory approaches and leadership buy-in are among the most important attributes for success.
• Score: 0.16385815610837165
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Organizations including companies, nonprofits, governments, and academic institutions are increasingly developing, deploying, and utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Responsible AI (RAI) governance approaches at organizations have emerged as important mechanisms to address potential AI risks and harms. In this work, we interviewed 17 technical contributors across organization types (Academic, Government, Industry, Nonprofit) and sectors (Finance, Health, Tech, Other) about their experiences with internal RAI governance. Our findings illuminated the variety of organizational definitions of RAI and accompanying internal governance approaches. We summarized the first detailed findings on algorithm review boards (ARBs) and similar review committees in practice, including their membership, scope, and measures of success. We confirmed known robust model governance in finance sectors and revealed extensive algorithm and AI governance with ARB-like review boards in health sectors. Our findings contradict the idea that Institutional Review Boards alone are sufficient for algorithm governance and posit that ARBs are among the more impactful internal RAI governance approaches. Our results suggest that integration with existing internal regulatory approaches and leadership buy-in are among the most important attributes for success and that financial tensions are the greatest challenge to effective organizational RAI. We make a variety of suggestions for how organizational partners can learn from these findings when building their own internal RAI frameworks. We outline future directions for developing and measuring effectiveness of ARBs and other internal RAI governance approaches.

Related papers

• Responsible AI in the Global Context: Maturity Model and Survey [0.3613661942047476]
  Responsible AI (RAI) has emerged as a major focus across industry, policymaking, and academia. This study explores the global state of RAI through one of the most extensive surveys to date on the topic. We define a conceptual RAI maturity model for organizations to map how well they implement organizational and operational RAI measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T20:04:32Z)
• 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)
• Achieving Responsible AI through ESG: Insights and Recommendations from Industry Engagement [15.544366555353262]
  This study examines how leading companies align Responsible AI (RAI) with their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals. We identify a strong link between RAI and ESG practices, but a significant gap exists between internal RAI policies and public disclosures. We provide recommendations to strengthen RAI strategies, focusing on transparency, cross-functional collaboration, and seamless integration into existing ESG frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T05:48:03Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Responsible AI Question Bank: A Comprehensive Tool for AI Risk Assessment [17.026921603767722]
  The study introduces our Responsible AI (RAI) Question Bank, a comprehensive framework and tool designed to support diverse AI initiatives. By integrating AI ethics principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability into a structured question format, the RAI Question Bank aids in identifying potential risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T22:40:20Z)
• Open Problems in Technical AI Governance [93.89102632003996]
  Technical AI governance refers to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI. This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T21:13:56Z)
• 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 AI Governance: A Systematic Literature Review [8.318630741859113]
  This paper aims to examine the existing literature on AI Governance. The focus of this study is to analyse the literature to answer key questions: WHO is accountable for AI systems' governance, WHAT elements are being governed, WHEN governance occurs within the AI development life cycle, and HOW it is executed through various mechanisms like frameworks, tools, standards, policies, or models. The findings of this study provides a foundational basis for future research and development of comprehensive governance models that align with RAI principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T05:22:36Z)
• 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)
• 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.