Taking AI risks seriously: a new assessment model for the AI Act

IF 2.9 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI & Society Pub Date : 2023-07-12 DOI:10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z

Claudio Novelli, Federico Casolari, Antonino Rotolo, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Luciano Floridi

{"title":"Taking AI risks seriously: a new assessment model for the AI Act","authors":"Claudio Novelli, Federico Casolari, Antonino Rotolo, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Luciano Floridi","doi":"10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) defines four risk categories: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. However, as these categories statically depend on broad fields of application of AI, the risk magnitude may be wrongly estimated, and the AIA may not be enforced effectively. This problem is particularly challenging when it comes to regulating general-purpose AI (GPAI), which has versatile and often unpredictable applications. Recent amendments to the compromise text, though introducing context-specific assessments, remain insufficient. To address this, we propose applying the risk categories to specific AI scenarios, rather than solely to fields of application, using a risk assessment model that integrates the AIA with the risk approach arising from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and related literature. This integrated model enables the estimation of AI risk magnitude by considering the interaction between (a) risk determinants, (b) individual drivers of determinants, and (c) multiple risk types. We illustrate this model using large language models (LLMs) as an example.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"39 5","pages":"2493 - 2497"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) defines four risk categories: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. However, as these categories statically depend on broad fields of application of AI, the risk magnitude may be wrongly estimated, and the AIA may not be enforced effectively. This problem is particularly challenging when it comes to regulating general-purpose AI (GPAI), which has versatile and often unpredictable applications. Recent amendments to the compromise text, though introducing context-specific assessments, remain insufficient. To address this, we propose applying the risk categories to specific AI scenarios, rather than solely to fields of application, using a risk assessment model that integrates the AIA with the risk approach arising from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and related literature. This integrated model enables the estimation of AI risk magnitude by considering the interaction between (a) risk determinants, (b) individual drivers of determinants, and (c) multiple risk types. We illustrate this model using large language models (LLMs) as an example.

查看原文本刊更多论文

认真对待人工智能风险：人工智能法的新评估模式

欧盟《人工智能法》（AIA）定义了四个风险类别：不可接受、高、有限和最低。然而，由于这些类别静态地取决于人工智能的广泛应用领域，风险程度可能会被错误估计，《人工智能法》也可能无法有效执行。当涉及到对通用人工智能（GPAI）的监管时，这个问题尤其具有挑战性，因为通用人工智能的应用范围广泛，而且往往难以预测。最近对折衷案文的修订虽然引入了针对具体情况的评估，但仍然不够充分。为解决这一问题，我们建议将风险类别适用于具体的人工智能情景，而不是仅仅适用于应用领域，并使用一个风险评估模型，该模型将人工智能评估与政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）和相关文献中提出的风险方法相结合。这一综合模型通过考虑以下因素之间的相互作用，估算人工智能风险的大小：(a) 风险决定因素；(b) 决定因素的个别驱动因素；(c) 多种风险类型。我们以大型语言模型 (LLM) 为例来说明这一模型。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-

CiteScore

8.00

自引率

20.00%

发文量

257

期刊介绍： AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.