事先的合格评定法规是否有助于建立可信赖的基础模型?创新生态系统视角下的进化博弈分析

IF 10.1 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Xiaoxu Zhang , Wenyong Zhou , Wen Hu , Shenghan Zhou , Xiaoqian Hu , Linchao Yang
{"title":"事先的合格评定法规是否有助于建立可信赖的基础模型?创新生态系统视角下的进化博弈分析","authors":"Xiaoxu Zhang ,&nbsp;Wenyong Zhou ,&nbsp;Wen Hu ,&nbsp;Shenghan Zhou ,&nbsp;Xiaoqian Hu ,&nbsp;Linchao Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Untrustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially foundation models, may lead to significant economic and social issues, and this has been arousing widespread concern. However, there is no mature and future-proofed regulatory approach to govern foundation models or any consensus regarding the regulations due to their rapid development and limited understanding of them. Thus, the potential of alternative regulation methods should be fully discussed. The ex ante conformity assessment in the EU AI Act, the world's first comprehensive AI law, is applied to regulate high-risk AI systems and can be an alternative regulatory approach to manage foundation models in the future. Consequently, this necessitates considering whether ex ante conformity assessment can contribute to achieving trustworthy foundation models. Hence, we adopted an innovation ecosystem perspective and employed an evolutionary game approach, constructing two hypothetical scenarios for ex ante conformity assessment, namely, self-assessment and independent assessment. Findings show that market forces and ecosystem impacts play a crucial role in shaping trustworthiness and that ex ante conformity assessment alone—whether through self-assessment or independent assessment—may be insufficient to ensure trustworthy outcomes. Thus, we argue that market-driven incentives and ecosystem thinking among industry practitioners are pivotal for advancing trustworthy foundation models; however, it is important to remain cautious about the limitations of market mechanisms. Therefore, a hybrid regulatory framework that combines legal mandates with market-based incentives and ecosystem influences warrants further exploration. Furthermore, independent evaluators can serve as important facilitators in supporting providers through trustworthy audits. This study contributes to on-going policy discussions on trustworthy AI regulation and offers references for future policy design and implementation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47979,"journal":{"name":"Technology in Society","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 102900"},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can ex ante conformity assessment regulations contribute to trustworthy foundation models? An evolutionary game analysis from an innovation ecosystem perspective\",\"authors\":\"Xiaoxu Zhang ,&nbsp;Wenyong Zhou ,&nbsp;Wen Hu ,&nbsp;Shenghan Zhou ,&nbsp;Xiaoqian Hu ,&nbsp;Linchao Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Untrustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially foundation models, may lead to significant economic and social issues, and this has been arousing widespread concern. However, there is no mature and future-proofed regulatory approach to govern foundation models or any consensus regarding the regulations due to their rapid development and limited understanding of them. Thus, the potential of alternative regulation methods should be fully discussed. The ex ante conformity assessment in the EU AI Act, the world's first comprehensive AI law, is applied to regulate high-risk AI systems and can be an alternative regulatory approach to manage foundation models in the future. Consequently, this necessitates considering whether ex ante conformity assessment can contribute to achieving trustworthy foundation models. Hence, we adopted an innovation ecosystem perspective and employed an evolutionary game approach, constructing two hypothetical scenarios for ex ante conformity assessment, namely, self-assessment and independent assessment. Findings show that market forces and ecosystem impacts play a crucial role in shaping trustworthiness and that ex ante conformity assessment alone—whether through self-assessment or independent assessment—may be insufficient to ensure trustworthy outcomes. Thus, we argue that market-driven incentives and ecosystem thinking among industry practitioners are pivotal for advancing trustworthy foundation models; however, it is important to remain cautious about the limitations of market mechanisms. Therefore, a hybrid regulatory framework that combines legal mandates with market-based incentives and ecosystem influences warrants further exploration. Furthermore, independent evaluators can serve as important facilitators in supporting providers through trustworthy audits. This study contributes to on-going policy discussions on trustworthy AI regulation and offers references for future policy design and implementation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technology in Society\",\"volume\":\"82 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102900\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technology in Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25000909\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technology in Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25000909","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能系统,特别是基础模型的不可信,可能导致重大的经济和社会问题,已引起广泛关注。然而,由于基础模型的快速发展和对其的有限理解,目前还没有成熟的、经得起未来考验的监管方法来管理基础模型,也没有关于法规的任何共识。因此,应该充分讨论替代监管方法的潜力。世界上第一部综合性人工智能法律《欧盟人工智能法案》中的事前合格性评估适用于监管高风险人工智能系统,可以成为未来管理基础模型的替代监管方法。因此,这就需要考虑事先的一致性评估是否有助于实现可信赖的基础模型。因此,本文采用创新生态系统视角,运用演化博弈方法,构建了事前合格评定的两种假设情景,即自我评估和独立评估。研究结果表明,市场力量和生态系统影响在塑造可信度方面发挥着至关重要的作用,仅通过事前合格评估(无论是自我评估还是独立评估)可能不足以确保结果值得信赖。因此,我们认为市场驱动的激励机制和行业从业者的生态系统思维对于推进可信基础模型至关重要;然而,对市场机制的局限性保持谨慎是很重要的。因此,将法律授权与市场激励和生态系统影响相结合的混合监管框架值得进一步探索。此外,独立的评估人员可以通过值得信赖的审计,在支持提供者方面发挥重要的促进作用。本研究有助于正在进行的关于可信赖人工智能监管的政策讨论,并为未来的政策设计和实施提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can ex ante conformity assessment regulations contribute to trustworthy foundation models? An evolutionary game analysis from an innovation ecosystem perspective
Untrustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) systems, especially foundation models, may lead to significant economic and social issues, and this has been arousing widespread concern. However, there is no mature and future-proofed regulatory approach to govern foundation models or any consensus regarding the regulations due to their rapid development and limited understanding of them. Thus, the potential of alternative regulation methods should be fully discussed. The ex ante conformity assessment in the EU AI Act, the world's first comprehensive AI law, is applied to regulate high-risk AI systems and can be an alternative regulatory approach to manage foundation models in the future. Consequently, this necessitates considering whether ex ante conformity assessment can contribute to achieving trustworthy foundation models. Hence, we adopted an innovation ecosystem perspective and employed an evolutionary game approach, constructing two hypothetical scenarios for ex ante conformity assessment, namely, self-assessment and independent assessment. Findings show that market forces and ecosystem impacts play a crucial role in shaping trustworthiness and that ex ante conformity assessment alone—whether through self-assessment or independent assessment—may be insufficient to ensure trustworthy outcomes. Thus, we argue that market-driven incentives and ecosystem thinking among industry practitioners are pivotal for advancing trustworthy foundation models; however, it is important to remain cautious about the limitations of market mechanisms. Therefore, a hybrid regulatory framework that combines legal mandates with market-based incentives and ecosystem influences warrants further exploration. Furthermore, independent evaluators can serve as important facilitators in supporting providers through trustworthy audits. This study contributes to on-going policy discussions on trustworthy AI regulation and offers references for future policy design and implementation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.90
自引率
14.10%
发文量
316
审稿时长
60 days
期刊介绍: Technology in Society is a global journal dedicated to fostering discourse at the crossroads of technological change and the social, economic, business, and philosophical transformation of our world. The journal aims to provide scholarly contributions that empower decision-makers to thoughtfully and intentionally navigate the decisions shaping this dynamic landscape. A common thread across these fields is the role of technology in society, influencing economic, political, and cultural dynamics. Scholarly work in Technology in Society delves into the social forces shaping technological decisions and the societal choices regarding technology use. This encompasses scholarly and theoretical approaches (history and philosophy of science and technology, technology forecasting, economic growth, and policy, ethics), applied approaches (business innovation, technology management, legal and engineering), and developmental perspectives (technology transfer, technology assessment, and economic development). Detailed information about the journal's aims and scope on specific topics can be found in Technology in Society Briefings, accessible via our Special Issues and Article Collections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信