Related papers: Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains

Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02648v1
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 14:12:43 GMT
Title: Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains
Authors: Aspen K. Hopkins, Isabella Struckman, Kevin Klyman, Susan S. Silbey,
Abstract summary: Supply chains for AI systems are often the product of AI supply chains (AISC)<n>We consider who participates in AISCs, what harms they face, where sources of harm lie, and how market dynamics and power differentials inform the type and probability of remedies.<n>We offer a typology of responses to AISC-induced harms: recourse, repair, reparation or prevention.
Score: 1.0981736183508215
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: The AI industry is exploding in popularity, with increasing attention to potential harms and unwanted consequences. In the current digital ecosystem, AI deployments are often the product of AI supply chains (AISC): networks of outsourced models, data, and tooling through which multiple entities contribute to AI development and distribution. AI supply chains lack the modularity, redundancies, or conventional supply chain practices that enable identification, isolation, and easy correction of failures, exacerbating the already difficult processes of responding to ML-generated harms. As the stakeholders participating in and impacted by AISCs have scaled and diversified, so too have the risks they face. In this stakeholder analysis of AI supply chains, we consider who participates in AISCs, what harms they face, where sources of harm lie, and how market dynamics and power differentials inform the type and probability of remedies. Because AI supply chains are purposely invented and implemented, they may be designed to account for, rather than ignore, the complexities, consequences, and risks of deploying AI systems. To enable responsible design and management of AISCs, we offer a typology of responses to AISC-induced harms: recourse, repair, reparation or prevention. We apply this typology to stakeholders participating in a health-care AISC across three stylized markets $\unicode{x2013}$ vertical integration, horizontal integration, free market $\unicode{x2013}$ to illustrate how stakeholder positioning and power within an AISC may shape responses to an experienced harm.

Related papers

When Autonomy Goes Rogue: Preparing for Risks of Multi-Agent Collusion in Social Systems [78.04679174291329]
We introduce a proof-of-concept to simulate the risks of malicious multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>We apply this framework to two high-risk fields: misinformation spread and e-commerce fraud.<n>Our findings show that decentralized systems are more effective at carrying out malicious actions than centralized ones.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-19T15:17:30Z)
AI Supply Chains: An Emerging Ecosystem of AI Actors, Products, and Services [45.66861360191072]
We take a first step toward a formal study of AI supply chains and their implications.<n>We show two illustrative case studies indicating that both AI development and regulation are complicated in the presence of supply chains.<n>Our findings motivate further study of AI supply chains and their increasingly salient social, economic, regulatory, and technical implications.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-28T18:36:41Z)
Graph of Effort: Quantifying Risk of AI Usage for Vulnerability Assessment [0.0]
An AI used to attack non-AI assets is referred to as offensive AI.<n>The risk of exploiting its capabilities, such as high automation and complex pattern recognition, could significantly increase.<n>This paper introduces the Graph of Effort, an intuitive, flexible, and effective threat modeling method for analyzing the effort required to use offensive AI for vulnerability exploitation by an adversary.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-20T17:52:42Z)
Compliance Cards: Automated EU AI Act Compliance Analyses amidst a Complex AI Supply Chain [9.991293429067065]
We introduce a complete system for provider-side AIA compliance analyses amidst a complex AI supply chain. First is an interlocking set of computational, multi-stakeholder transparency artifacts that capture AIA-specific metadata about both. Second is an algorithm that operates across all those artifacts to render a real-time prediction about whether or not the aggregate AI system or model complies with the AIA.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-20T22:07:15Z)
Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI [94.06233419171016]
Applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source Generative AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-25T21:14:24Z)
AI Hazard Management: A framework for the systematic management of root causes for AI risks [0.0]
This paper introduces the AI Hazard Management (AIHM) framework. It provides a structured process to systematically identify, assess, and treat AI hazards. It builds upon an AI hazard list from a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-25T15:55:50Z)
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)
Will bots take over the supply chain? Revisiting Agent-based supply chain automation [71.77396882936951]
Agent-based supply chains have been proposed since early 2000; industrial uptake has been lagging. We find that agent-based technology has matured, and other supporting technologies that are penetrating supply chains are filling in gaps. For example, the ubiquity of IoT technology helps agents "sense" the state of affairs in a supply chain and opens up new possibilities for automation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-03T18:44:26Z)
Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment [71.9309995623067]
NeurIPS 2020 requested that research paper submissions include impact statements on "potential nefarious uses and the consequences of failure" We argue that frameworks of harms must be context-aware and consider a wider range of potential stakeholders, system affordances, as well as viable proxies for assessing harms in the widest sense.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-11-26T18:09:52Z)
Panel: Economic Policy and Governance during Pandemics using AI [0.0]
Outlier events create uncertainty along the entire supply chain in addition to intervening policy responses to mitigate their adverse effects. Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods provide an opportunity to better understand outcomes during outlier events. Employing AI can provide guidance to decision making suppliers, farmers, processors, wholesalers, and retailers along the supply chain.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-20T22:09:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.