Deciding how to respond: A deliberative framework to guide policymaker responses to AI systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03666v3
• Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:30:53 GMT
• Title: Deciding how to respond: A deliberative framework to guide policymaker responses to AI systems
• Authors: Willem Fourie,
• Abstract summary: We argue that by operationalising the concept of freedom, a complementary approach can be developed.<n>The resulting framework is structured around coordinative, communicative and decision spaces.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The discourse on responsible artificial intelligence (AI) regulation is understandably dominated by risk-focused assessments and analyses. This approach reflects the fundamental uncertainty policymakers face when determining appropriate responses to current, emerging and novel AI systems. In this article, we argue that by operationalising the concept of freedom - the philosophical counterpart to responsibility - a complementary approach centred on the potential societal benefits of AI systems can be developed. The result is a discursive framework grounded in freedom as capability and freedom as opportunity, which represent the two main intellectual traditions of interpreting freedom. We contend that the complexity, ambiguity and contestation involved in regulating AI systems make a deliberative paradigm more useful than the conventional technical one. The resulting framework is structured around coordinative, communicative and decision spaces, each with sequential focal points and associated outputs.

Related papers

• Responsible AI: The Good, The Bad, The AI [1.932555230783329]
  This paper presents a comprehensive examination of AI's dual nature through the lens of strategic information systems.<n>We develop the Paradox-based Responsible AI Governance (PRAIG) framework that articulates: (1) the strategic benefits of AI adoption, (2) the inherent risks and unintended consequences, and (3) governance mechanisms that enable organizations to navigate these tensions.<n>The paper concludes with a research agenda for advancing responsible AI governance scholarship.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T22:33:27Z)
• 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)
• Development of management systems using artificial intelligence systems and machine learning methods for boards of directors (preprint, unofficial translation) [0.0]
  The study addresses the paradigm shift in corporate management, where AI is moving from a decision support tool to an autonomous decision-maker.<n>A central problem identified is that the development of AI technologies is far outpacing the creation of adequate legal and ethical guidelines.<n>The research proposes a "reference model" for the development and implementation of autonomous AI systems in corporate management.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T04:01:22Z)
• Foundations for Risk Assessment of AI in Protecting Fundamental Rights [0.5093073566064981]
  This chapter introduces a conceptual framework for qualitative risk assessment of AI.<n>It addresses the complexities of legal compliance and fundamental rights protection by itegrating definitional balancing and defeasible reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T10:52:22Z)
• Resource Rational Contractualism Should Guide AI Alignment [69.07915246220985]
  Contractualist alignment proposes grounding decisions in agreements that diverse stakeholders would endorse.<n>We propose Resource-Rationalism: a framework where AI systems approximate the agreements rational parties would form.<n>An RRC-aligned agent would not only operate efficiently, but also be equipped to dynamically adapt to and interpret the ever-changing human social world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T18:57:13Z)
• A Multi-Layered Research Framework for Human-Centered AI: Defining the Path to Explainability and Trust [2.4578723416255754]
  Human-Centered AI (HCAI) emphasizes alignment with human values, while Explainable AI (XAI) enhances transparency by making AI decisions more understandable.<n>This paper presents a novel three-layered framework that bridges HCAI and XAI to establish a structured explainability paradigm.<n>Our findings advance Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI), fostering AI systems that are transparent, adaptable, and ethically aligned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T01:29:30Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• Towards Developing Ethical Reasoners: Integrating Probabilistic Reasoning and Decision-Making for Complex AI Systems [4.854297874710511]
  A computational ethics framework is essential for AI and autonomous systems operating in complex, real-world environments.<n>Existing approaches often lack the adaptability needed to integrate ethical principles into dynamic and ambiguous contexts.<n>We outline the necessary ingredients for building a holistic, meta-level framework that combines intermediate representations, probabilistic reasoning, and knowledge representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T17:25:11Z)
• AI and the Transformation of Accountability and Discretion in Urban Governance [1.9152655229960793]
  The study synthesizes insights to propose guiding principles for responsible AI integration in decision-making processes.<n>The analysis argues that AI does not simply restrict or enhance discretion but redistributes it across institutional levels.<n>It may simultaneously strengthen managerial oversight, enhance decision-making consistency, and improve operational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T18:11:39Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Roadmap to Society's Trust through Trustworthy AI, Auditability, Accountability, and Governance [37.10526074040908]
  This paper explores the concept of a responsible AI system from a holistic perspective.<n>The final goal of the paper is to propose a roadmap in the design of responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T14:47:30Z)
• Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground [55.2480439325792]
  I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms.<n>I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:36:13Z)
• Delegating Responsibilities to Intelligent Autonomous Systems: Challenges and Benefits [1.7205106391379026]
  As AI systems operate with autonomy and adaptability, the traditional boundaries of moral responsibility in techno-social systems are being challenged.<n>This paper explores the evolving discourse on the delegation of responsibilities to intelligent autonomous agents and the ethical implications of such practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T18:40:38Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• 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)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence: A Structured Literature Review [0.0]
  The EU has recently issued several publications emphasizing the necessity of trust in AI. This highlights the urgent need for international regulation. This paper introduces a comprehensive and, to our knowledge, the first unified definition of responsible AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T17:01:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Putting AI Ethics into Practice: The Hourglass Model of Organizational AI Governance [0.0]
  We present an AI governance framework, which targets organizations that develop and use AI systems. The framework is designed to help organizations deploying AI systems translate ethical AI principles into practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-01T08:55:27Z)
• 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.