Who is Responsible When AI Fails? Mapping Causes, Entities, and Consequences of AI Privacy and Ethical Incidents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01029v2
• Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:53:51 GMT
• Title: Who is Responsible When AI Fails? Mapping Causes, Entities, and Consequences of AI Privacy and Ethical Incidents
• Authors: Hilda Hadan, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, Lennart E. Nacke,
• Abstract summary: We analyzed 202 real-world AI privacy and ethical incidents to develop a taxonomy.<n>Our findings reveal widespread harms from poor organizational decisions and legal non-compliance.<n>Our findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners.
• Score: 31.53910982726317
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has raised major privacy and ethical concerns. However, existing AI incident taxonomies and guidelines lack grounding in real-world cases, limiting their effectiveness for prevention and mitigation. We analyzed 202 real-world AI privacy and ethical incidents to develop a taxonomy that classifies them across AI lifecycle stages and captures contributing factors, including causes, responsible entities, sources of disclosure, and impacts. Our findings reveal widespread harms from poor organizational decisions and legal non-compliance, limited corrective interventions, and rare reporting from AI developers and adopting entities. Our taxonomy offers a structured approach for systematic incident reporting and emphasizes the weaknesses of current AI governance frameworks. Our findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners to strengthen user protections, develop targeted AI policies, enhance reporting practices, and foster responsible AI governance and innovation, especially in contexts such as social media and child protection.

Related papers

• Trust and Transparency in AI: Industry Voices on Data, Ethics, and Compliance [0.7099737083842057]
  The rapid adoption of AI in the industry has outpaced ethical evaluation frameworks.<n>This paper investigates practical approaches and challenges in the development and assessment of Trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T20:58:01Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• A Closer Look at the Existing Risks of Generative AI: Mapping the Who, What, and How of Real-World Incidents [11.147381548503965]
  We construct a taxonomy specifically for Generative AI failures and map them to the harms they precipitate.<n>We report the prevalence of each type of harm, underlying failure mode, and harmed stakeholder, as well as their common co-occurrences.<n>Our work offers actionable insights to policymakers, developers, and Generative AI users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T07:54:06Z)
• Transparency, Security, and Workplace Training & Awareness in the Age of Generative AI [0.0]
  As AI technologies advance, ethical considerations, transparency, data privacy, and their impact on human labor intersect with the drive for innovation and efficiency.<n>Our research explores publicly accessible large language models (LLMs) that often operate on the periphery, away from mainstream scrutiny.<n>Specifically, we examine Gab AI, a platform that centers around unrestricted communication and privacy, allowing users to interact freely without censorship.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T17:40:58Z)
• Position: A taxonomy for reporting and describing AI security incidents [57.98317583163334]
  We argue that specific are required to describe and report security incidents of AI systems.<n>Existing frameworks for either non-AI security or generic AI safety incident reporting are insufficient to capture the specific properties of AI security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• A Survey on Offensive AI Within Cybersecurity [1.8206461789819075]
  This survey paper on offensive AI will comprehensively cover various aspects related to attacks against and using AI systems. It will delve into the impact of offensive AI practices on different domains, including consumer, enterprise, and public digital infrastructure. The paper will explore adversarial machine learning, attacks against AI models, infrastructure, and interfaces, along with offensive techniques like information gathering, social engineering, and weaponized AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T17:36:22Z)
• Lessons for Editors of AI Incidents from the AI Incident Database [2.5165775267615205]
  The AI Incident Database (AIID) is a project that catalogs AI incidents and supports further research by providing a platform to classify incidents. This study reviews the AIID's dataset of 750+ AI incidents and two independent ambiguities applied to these incidents to identify common challenges to indexing and analyzing AI incidents. We report mitigations to make incident processes more robust to uncertainty related to cause, extent of harm, severity, or technical details of implicated systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T19:46:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Investigating Responsible AI for Scientific Research: An Empirical Study [4.597781832707524]
  The push for Responsible AI (RAI) in such institutions underscores the increasing emphasis on integrating ethical considerations within AI design and development. This paper aims to assess the awareness and preparedness regarding the ethical risks inherent in AI design and development. Our results have revealed certain knowledge gaps concerning ethical, responsible, and inclusive AI, with limitations in awareness of the available AI ethics frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T06:40:27Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• The AI Incident Database as an Educational Tool to Raise Awareness of AI Harms: A Classroom Exploration of Efficacy, Limitations, & Future Improvements [14.393183391019292]
  The AI Incident Database (AIID) is one of the few attempts at offering a relatively comprehensive database indexing prior instances of harms or near harms stemming from the deployment of AI technologies in the real world. This study assesses the effectiveness of AIID as an educational tool to raise awareness regarding the prevalence and severity of AI harms in socially high-stakes domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T02:55:09Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• AI Ethics Issues in Real World: Evidence from AI Incident Database [0.6091702876917279]
  We identify 13 application areas which often see unethical use of AI, with intelligent service robots, language/vision models and autonomous driving taking the lead. Ethical issues appear in 8 different forms, from inappropriate use and racial discrimination, to physical safety and unfair algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T16:25:57Z)
• Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security (AICS) Workshop at AAAI 2022 [55.573187938617636]
  The workshop will focus on the application of AI to problems in cyber security. Cyber systems generate large volumes of data, utilizing this effectively is beyond human capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-28T18:27:41Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• The Role of Social Movements, Coalitions, and Workers in Resisting Harmful Artificial Intelligence and Contributing to the Development of Responsible AI [0.0]
  Coalitions in all sectors are acting worldwide to resist hamful applications of AI. There are biased, wrongful, and disturbing assumptions embedded in AI algorithms. Perhaps one of the greatest contributions of AI will be to make us understand how important human wisdom truly is in life on earth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-11T18:51:29Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)
• Socially Responsible AI Algorithms: Issues, Purposes, and Challenges [31.382000425295885]
  Technologists and AI researchers have a responsibility to develop trustworthy AI systems. To build long-lasting trust between AI and human beings, we argue that the key is to think beyond algorithmic fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-01T17:34:42Z)
• 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.