Coordinated Disclosure for AI: Beyond Security Vulnerabilities
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07039v2
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 16:08:34 GMT
- Title: Coordinated Disclosure for AI: Beyond Security Vulnerabilities
- Authors: Sven Cattell, Avijit Ghosh, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee,
- Abstract summary: Algorithmic flaws in machine learning (ML) models present distinct challenges compared to traditional software vulnerabilities.
To address this gap, we propose the implementation of a dedicated Coordinated Flaw Disclosure framework.
This paper delves into the historical landscape of disclosures in ML, encompassing the ad hoc reporting of harms and the emergence of participatory auditing.
- Score: 1.3225694028747144
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Harm reporting in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) currently operates on an ad hoc basis, lacking a structured process for disclosing or addressing algorithmic flaws. In contrast, the Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) ethos and ecosystem play a pivotal role in software security and transparency. Globally, there are ongoing efforts to establish frameworks that promote transparency and collaboration in addressing AI-related issues, though challenges persist. Algorithmic flaws in machine learning (ML) models present distinct challenges compared to traditional software vulnerabilities, warranting a specialized approach. To address this gap, we propose the implementation of a dedicated Coordinated Flaw Disclosure (CFD) framework tailored to the intricacies of machine learning and artificial intelligence issues. This paper delves into the historical landscape of disclosures in ML, encompassing the ad hoc reporting of harms and the emergence of participatory auditing. By juxtaposing these practices with the well-established disclosure norms in cybersecurity, we argue that the broader adoption of CFD has the potential to enhance public trust through transparent processes that carefully balance the interests of both organizations and the community.
Related papers
- 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 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) - Trust in Software Supply Chains: Blockchain-Enabled SBOM and the AIBOM
Future [28.67753149592534]
This study introduces a blockchain-empowered architecture for SBOM sharing, leveraging verifiable credentials to allow for selective disclosure.
This paper broadens the remit of SBOM to encompass AI systems, thereby coining the term AI Bill of Materials (AIBOM)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-05T07:56:48Z) - ExTRUST: Reducing Exploit Stockpiles with a Privacy-Preserving Depletion
System for Inter-State Relationships [4.349142920611964]
This paper proposes a privacy-preserving approach that allows multiple state parties to privately compare their stock of vulnerabilities and exploits.
We call our system Extrust and show that it is scalable and can withstand several attack scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-01T12:02:17Z) - Exploring the Relevance of Data Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for AI
Governance Use Cases [1.5293427903448022]
It is useful to view different AI governance objectives as a system of information flows.
The importance of interoperability between these different AI governance solutions becomes clear.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-15T21:56:59Z) - Towards a Responsible AI Development Lifecycle: Lessons From Information
Security [0.0]
We propose a framework for responsibly developing artificial intelligence systems.
In particular, we propose leveraging the concepts of threat modeling, design review, penetration testing, and incident response.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-06T13:03:58Z) - Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and Process Mining: Challenges and
Opportunities [0.8602553195689513]
We show that process mining can provide a useful framework for gaining fact-based visibility to AI compliance process execution.
We provide for an automated approach to analyze, remediate and monitor uncertainty in AI regulatory compliance processes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-06T12:50:47Z) - Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome.
Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations.
We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z) - Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and
Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions.
We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems.
This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z) - Trustworthy AI [75.99046162669997]
Brittleness to minor adversarial changes in the input data, ability to explain the decisions, address the bias in their training data, are some of the most prominent limitations.
We propose the tutorial on Trustworthy AI to address six critical issues in enhancing user and public trust in AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-02T20:04:18Z) - 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.