Ethical and Scalable Automation: A Governance and Compliance Framework for Business Applications
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16872v2
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 20:51:04 GMT
- Title: Ethical and Scalable Automation: A Governance and Compliance Framework for Business Applications
- Authors: Haocheng Lin,
- Abstract summary: This paper introduces a framework ensuring that AI must be ethical, controllable, viable, and desirable.
Different case studies validate this framework by integrating AI in both academic and practical environments.
- Score: 0.0
- License:
- Abstract: The popularisation of applying AI in businesses poses significant challenges relating to ethical principles, governance, and legal compliance. Although businesses have embedded AI into their day-to-day processes, they lack a unified approach for mitigating its potential risks. This paper introduces a framework ensuring that AI must be ethical, controllable, viable, and desirable. Balancing these factors ensures the design of a framework that addresses its trade-offs, such as balancing performance against explainability. A successful framework provides practical advice for businesses to meet regulatory requirements in sectors such as finance and healthcare, where it is critical to comply with standards like GPDR and the EU AI Act. Different case studies validate this framework by integrating AI in both academic and practical environments. For instance, large language models are cost-effective alternatives for generating synthetic opinions that emulate attitudes to environmental issues. These case studies demonstrate how having a structured framework could enhance transparency and maintain performance levels as shown from the alignment between synthetic and expected distributions. This alignment is quantified using metrics like Chi-test scores, normalized mutual information, and Jaccard indexes. Future research should explore the framework's empirical validation in diverse industrial settings further, ensuring the model's scalability and adaptability.
Related papers
- Bridging the Gap in XAI-Why Reliable Metrics Matter for Explainability and Compliance [2.3020018305241337]
The paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics.
Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models.
We advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-07T06:54:48Z) - Human services organizations and the responsible integration of AI: Considering ethics and contextualizing risk(s) [0.0]
Authors argue that ethical concerns about AI deployment vary significantly based on implementation context and specific use cases.
They propose a dimensional risk assessment approach that considers factors like data sensitivity, professional oversight requirements, and potential impact on client wellbeing.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-20T19:38:21Z) - TOAST Framework: A Multidimensional Approach to Ethical and Sustainable AI Integration in Organizations [0.38073142980732994]
This paper introduces the Trustworthy, Optimized, Adaptable, and Socio-Technologically harmonious (TOAST) framework.
It focuses on reliability, accountability, technical advancement, adaptability, and socio-technical harmony.
By grounding the TOAST framework in healthcare case studies, this paper provides a robust evaluation of its practicality and theoretical soundness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-01-07T05:13:39Z) - 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) - Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing [0.0]
The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act takes effect on 1 August 2024.
High-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards.
We propose a novel framework, which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-05T15:35:34Z) - 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) - Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM
Chatbots Using an Ethics-Based Audit to Assess Moral Reasoning and Normative
Values [0.0]
Ethics-based audits play a pivotal role in the rapidly growing fields of AI safety and regulation.
This paper undertakes an ethics-based audit to probe the 8 leading commercial and open-source Large Language Models including GPT-4.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-09T14:57:30Z) - Unpacking the Ethical Value Alignment in Big Models [46.560886177083084]
This paper provides an overview of the risks and challenges associated with big models, surveys existing AI ethics guidelines, and examines the ethical implications arising from the limitations of these models.
We introduce a novel conceptual paradigm for aligning the ethical values of big models and discuss promising research directions for alignment criteria, evaluation, and method.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-26T16:45:40Z) - 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) - Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for
algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values.
We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z) - 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.