Trust and Transparency in AI: Industry Voices on Data, Ethics, and Compliance
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22709v1
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:58:01 GMT
- Title: Trust and Transparency in AI: Industry Voices on Data, Ethics, and Compliance
- Authors: Louise McCormack, Diletta Huyskes, Dave Lewis, Malika Bendechache,
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 0.7099737083842057
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act directs businesses to assess their AI systems to ensure they are developed in a way that is human-centered and trustworthy. The rapid adoption of AI in the industry has outpaced ethical evaluation frameworks, leading to significant challenges in accountability, governance, data quality, human oversight, technological robustness, and environmental and societal impacts. Through structured interviews with fifteen industry professionals, paired with a literature review conducted on each of the key interview findings, this paper investigates practical approaches and challenges in the development and assessment of Trustworthy AI (TAI). The findings from participants in our study, and the subsequent literature reviews, reveal complications in risk management, compliance and accountability, which are exacerbated by a lack of transparency, unclear regulatory requirements and a rushed implementation of AI. Participants reported concerns that technological robustness and safety could be compromised by model inaccuracies, security vulnerabilities, and an overreliance on AI without proper safeguards in place. Additionally, the negative environmental and societal impacts of AI, including high energy consumption, political radicalisation, loss of culture and reinforcement of social inequalities, are areas of concern. There is a pressing need not just for risk mitigation and TAI evaluation within AI systems but for a wider approach to developing an AI landscape that aligns with the social and cultural values of the countries adopting those technologies.
Related papers
- Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z) - A Study on the Framework for Evaluating the Ethics and Trustworthiness of Generative AI [6.664765506069473]
generative AI, such as ChatGPT, demonstrates remarkable innovative potential.<n>It simultaneously raises ethical and social concerns, including bias, harmfulness, copyright infringement, privacy violations, and hallucination.<n>This study emphasizes the need for new human_centered criteria that also reflect social impact.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-30T07:38:07Z) - 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) - Advancing Science- and Evidence-based AI Policy [163.43609502905707]
This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize the relationship between evidence and policy to address the opportunities and challenges of AI.<n>An increasing number of efforts address this problem by often either (i) contributing research into the risks of AI and their effective mitigation or (ii) advocating for policy to address these risks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-02T23:20:58Z) - Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment.<n>We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z) - 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.<n>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) - Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z) - Trustworthy and Responsible AI for Human-Centric Autonomous Decision-Making Systems [2.444630714797783]
We review and discuss the intricacies of AI biases, definitions, methods of detection and mitigation, and metrics for evaluating bias.
We also discuss open challenges with regard to the trustworthiness and widespread application of AI across diverse domains of human-centric decision making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-28T06:04:25Z) - The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards [0.0]
We argue that creating auditing standards is not just insufficient, but actively harmful by proliferating unheeded and inconsistent standards.
Instead, the paper proposes the establishment of an AI Audit Standards Board, responsible for developing and updating auditing methods and standards.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-11T15:08:24Z) - 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) - 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.