Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13948v2
• Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 22:40:12 GMT
• Title: Assurance of AI Systems From a Dependability Perspective
• Authors: Robin Bloomfield, John Rushby,
• Abstract summary: We outline the principles of classical assurance for computer-based systems that pose significant risks. We then consider application of these principles to systems that employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: We outline the principles of classical assurance for computer-based systems that pose significant risks. We then consider application of these principles to systems that employ Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). A key element in this "dependability" perspective is a requirement to have near-complete understanding of the behavior of critical components, and this is considered infeasible for AI and ML. Hence the dependability perspective aims to minimize trust in AI and ML elements by using "defense in depth" with a hierarchy of less complex systems, some of which may be highly assured conventionally engineered components, to "guard" them. This may be contrasted with the "trustworthy" perspective that seeks to apply assurance to the AI and ML elements themselves. In cyber-physical and many other systems, it is difficult to provide guards that do not depend on AI and ML to perceive their environment (e.g., other vehicles sharing the road with a self-driving car), so both perspectives are needed and there is a continuum or spectrum between them. We focus on architectures toward the dependability end of the continuum and invite others to consider additional points along the spectrum. For guards that require perception using AI and ML, we examine ways to minimize the trust placed in these elements; they include diversity, defense in depth, explanations, and micro-ODDs. We also examine methods to enforce acceptable behavior, given a model of the world. These include classical cyber-physical calculations and envelopes, and normative rules based on overarching principles, constitutions, ethics, or reputation. We apply our perspective to autonomous systems, AI systems for specific functions, generic AI such as Large Language Models, and to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and we propose current best practice and an agenda for research.

Related papers

• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We argue that shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition is underdeveloped in AI systems. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• 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)
• The Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix: Models for Classifying AI Systems [0.0]
  There still exists a gap between principles and practices in AI ethics. One major obstacle organisations face when attempting to operationalise AI Ethics is the lack of a well-defined material scope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T12:16:01Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• Connecting the Dots in Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI Principles, Ethics, and Key Requirements to Responsible AI Systems and Regulation [22.921683578188645]
  We argue that attaining truly trustworthy AI concerns the trustworthiness of all processes and actors that are part of the system's life cycle. A more holistic vision contemplates four essential axes: the global principles for ethical use and development of AI-based systems, a philosophical take on AI ethics, and a risk-based approach to AI regulation. Our multidisciplinary vision of trustworthy AI culminates in a debate on the diverging views published lately about the future of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T09:49:53Z)
• AI Maintenance: A Robustness Perspective [91.28724422822003]
  We introduce highlighted robustness challenges in the AI lifecycle and motivate AI maintenance by making analogies to car maintenance. We propose an AI model inspection framework to detect and mitigate robustness risks. Our proposal for AI maintenance facilitates robustness assessment, status tracking, risk scanning, model hardening, and regulation throughout the AI lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-08T15:02:38Z)
• Never trust, always verify : a roadmap for Trustworthy AI? [12.031113181911627]
  We examine trust in the context of AI-based systems to understand what it means for an AI system to be trustworthy. We suggest a trust (resp. zero-trust) model for AI and suggest a set of properties that should be satisfied to ensure the trustworthiness of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T21:13:10Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• 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)

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.