The Journey to Trustworthy AI- Part 1: Pursuit of Pragmatic Frameworks
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15457v2
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:45:35 GMT
- Title: The Journey to Trustworthy AI- Part 1: Pursuit of Pragmatic Frameworks
- Authors: Mohamad M Nasr-Azadani, Jean-Luc Chatelain,
- Abstract summary: This paper reviews Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and its various definitions.
We argue against using terms such as Responsible or Ethical AI as substitutes for TAI.
Instead, we advocate for approaches centered on addressing key attributes and properties such as fairness, bias, risk, security, explainability, and reliability.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: This paper reviews Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and its various definitions. Considering the principles respected in any society, TAI is often characterized by a few attributes, some of which have led to confusion in regulatory or engineering contexts. We argue against using terms such as Responsible or Ethical AI as substitutes for TAI. And to help clarify any confusion, we suggest leaving them behind. Given the subjectivity and complexity inherent in TAI, developing a universal framework is deemed infeasible. Instead, we advocate for approaches centered on addressing key attributes and properties such as fairness, bias, risk, security, explainability, and reliability. We examine the ongoing regulatory landscape, with a focus on initiatives in the EU, China, and the USA. We recognize that differences in AI regulations based on geopolitical and geographical reasons pose an additional challenge for multinational companies. We identify risk as a core factor in AI regulation and TAI. For example, as outlined in the EU-AI Act, organizations must gauge the risk level of their AI products to act accordingly (or risk hefty fines). We compare modalities of TAI implementation and how multiple cross-functional teams are engaged in the overall process. Thus, a brute force approach for enacting TAI renders its efficiency and agility, moot. To address this, we introduce our framework Set-Formalize-Measure-Act (SFMA). Our solution highlights the importance of transforming TAI-aware metrics, drivers of TAI, stakeholders, and business/legal requirements into actual benchmarks or tests. Finally, over-regulation driven by panic of powerful AI models can, in fact, harm TAI too. Based on GitHub user-activity data, in 2023, AI open-source projects rose to top projects by contributor account. Enabling innovation in TAI hinges on the independent contributions of the open-source community.
Related papers
- Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology [50.586585729683776]
Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety.
A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology.
This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress?
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-21T20:30:01Z) - Crossing the principle-practice gap in AI ethics with ethical problem-solving [0.0]
How to bridge the principle-practice gap separating ethical discourse from the technical side of AI development remains an open problem.
EPS is a methodology promoting responsible, human-centric, and value-oriented AI development.
We utilize EPS as a blueprint to propose the implementation of Ethics as a Service Platform.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-16T14:35:13Z) - 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) - How VADER is your AI? Towards a definition of artificial intelligence
systems appropriate for regulation [41.94295877935867]
Recent AI regulation proposals adopt AI definitions affecting ICT techniques, approaches, and systems that are not AI.
We propose a framework to score how validated as appropriately-defined for regulation (VADER) an AI definition is.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T17:41:15Z) - 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, Accountability, and Autonomy in Knowledge Graph-based AI for
Self-determination [1.4305544869388402]
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) have emerged as fundamental platforms for powering intelligent decision-making.
The integration of KGs with neuronal learning is currently a topic of active research.
This paper conceptualises the foundational topics and research pillars to support KG-based AI for self-determination.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-30T12:51:52Z) - Quantitative study about the estimated impact of the AI Act [0.0]
We suggest a systematic approach that we applied on the initial draft of the AI Act that has been released in April 2021.
We went through several iterations of compiling the list of AI products and projects in and from Germany, which the Lernende Systeme platform lists.
It turns out that only about 30% of the AI systems considered would be regulated by the AI Act, the rest would be classified as low-risk.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-29T06:23:16Z) - The Role of Large Language Models in the Recognition of Territorial
Sovereignty: An Analysis of the Construction of Legitimacy [67.44950222243865]
We argue that technology tools like Google Maps and Large Language Models (LLM) are often perceived as impartial and objective.
We highlight the case of three controversial territories: Crimea, West Bank and Transnitria, by comparing the responses of ChatGPT against Wikipedia information and United Nations resolutions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-17T08:46:49Z) - 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) - 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.