Echoes of AI Harms: A Human-LLM Synergistic Framework for Bias-Driven Harm Anticipation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03068v1
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 07:25:21 GMT
- Title: Echoes of AI Harms: A Human-LLM Synergistic Framework for Bias-Driven Harm Anticipation
- Authors: Nicoleta Tantalaki, Sophia Vei, Athena Vakali,
- Abstract summary: ECHO is a novel framework for proactive AI harm anticipation.<n>It enables early-stage detection of bias-to-harm pathways.<n>We validate ECHO in two high-stakes domains (disease diagnosis and hiring)
- Score: 1.5892420496333068
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: The growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems on decision-making in critical domains has exposed their potential to cause significant harms, often rooted in biases embedded across the AI lifecycle. While existing frameworks and taxonomies document bias or harms in isolation, they rarely establish systematic links between specific bias types and the harms they cause, particularly within real-world sociotechnical contexts. Technical fixes proposed to address AI biases are ill-equipped to address them and are typically applied after a system has been developed or deployed, offering limited preventive value. We propose ECHO, a novel framework for proactive AI harm anticipation through the systematic mapping of AI bias types to harm outcomes across diverse stakeholder and domain contexts. ECHO follows a modular workflow encompassing stakeholder identification, vignette-based presentation of biased AI systems, and dual (human-LLM) harm annotation, integrated within ethical matrices for structured interpretation. This human-centered approach enables early-stage detection of bias-to-harm pathways, guiding AI design and governance decisions from the outset. We validate ECHO in two high-stakes domains (disease diagnosis and hiring), revealing domain-specific, bias-to-harm patterns and demonstrating ECHO's potential to support anticipatory governance of AI systems
Related papers
- AI Epidemiology: achieving explainable AI through expert oversight patterns [0.0]
AI Epidemiology is a framework for governing and explaining advanced AI systems.<n>It mirrors the way in which epidemiologists enable public health interventions through statistical evidence.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-15T11:29:05Z) - AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z) - Identifying the Supply Chain of AI for Trustworthiness and Risk Management in Critical Applications [0.0]
Gap exists in the systematic assessment of supply chain risks associated with the complex web of data sources, pre-trained models, agents, services, and other systems that contribute to the output of modern AI systems.<n>We survey the current state of AI risk assessment and management, with a focus on the supply chain of AI and risks relating to the behavior and outputs of the AI system.<n>We present a proposed taxonomy specifically for categorizing AI supply chain entities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-19T14:52:02Z) - Variance-Bounded Evaluation of Entity-Centric AI Systems Without Ground Truth: Theory and Measurement [0.0]
We introduce VB-Score, a variance-bounded evaluation framework for entity-centric AI systems.<n> VB-Score enumerates plausible interpretations through constraint relaxation and Monte Carlo sampling.<n>It then evaluates system outputs by their expected success across interpretations, penalized by variance to assess robustness of the system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-26T07:54:38Z) - Neurodivergent Influenceability as a Contingent Solution to the AI Alignment Problem [1.3905735045377272]
The AI alignment problem, which focusses on ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI) systems act according to human values, presents profound challenges.<n>With the progression from narrow AI to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Superintelligence, fears about control and existential risk have escalated.<n>Here, we investigate whether embracing inevitable AI misalignment can be a contingent strategy to foster a dynamic ecosystem of competing agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-05T11:33:18Z) - AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans [54.19152688545896]
There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness.<n>The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-03-04T03:55:38Z) - AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey [69.61425542486275]
AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values.<n>We identify four principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality.<n>We decompose current alignment research into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-30T15:52:15Z) - Predictable Artificial Intelligence [77.1127726638209]
This paper introduces the ideas and challenges of Predictable AI.<n>It explores the ways in which we can anticipate key validity indicators of present and future AI ecosystems.<n>We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z) - 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) - Fairness And Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources,
Impacts, And Mitigation Strategies [11.323961700172175]
This survey paper offers a succinct, comprehensive overview of fairness and bias in AI.
We review sources of bias, such as data, algorithm, and human decision biases.
We assess the societal impact of biased AI systems, focusing on the perpetuation of inequalities and the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-16T03:23:55Z) - 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) - 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)
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.