AI and the Iterable Epistopics of Risk

Overview

• The paper examines how the risks of AI are understood and managed by different stakeholders, including regulators, developers, and cybersecurity experts.
• It argues that risk and risk management are not fully captured by general frameworks like ethical guidelines or regulations, but are instead shaped by situated practices of those involved in AI development.
• The discovery and elaboration of these "epistopics of risk" can inform interdisciplinary research, help developers understand risk, and guide the evolution of risk management frameworks.

Plain English Explanation

The paper looks at how the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are perceived and handled by different groups, such as regulators, the people who create AI, and cybersecurity professionals. It suggests that the general approaches we have for managing AI risks, like ethical guidelines or laws, don't fully capture the real-world experience of the people working with this technology.

Instead, the way these groups actually understand and respond to AI risks depends on their specific practices and situations. By studying these "situated" experiences, the researchers hope to uncover new insights about the challenges of managing AI risks. This could lead to better ways for AI developers to identify and address potential problems, as well as help shape the ongoing development of broader risk management frameworks.

The key idea is that the practicalities of working with AI reveal important nuances about risk that aren't always captured by high-level policies or regulations. Diving deeper into these day-to-day experiences could inform both the research on AI risks and the tools used to mitigate them.

Technical Explanation

The paper argues that the risks posed by AI are not fully addressed by general frameworks like ethical guidelines, international standards, or regulations. Instead, the paper examines how risk and risk management are shaped by the situated practices of different stakeholders, such as regulators, AI developers, and cybersecurity experts.

Through ethnographic research, the authors surface "epistopics of risk" - the ways in which those involved in AI development understand and respond to risk based on their specific roles and contexts. This reveals major challenges that are not easily captured by high-level risk management approaches.

The ongoing study and elaboration of these epistopics can serve three key purposes:

1. Provide a program of interdisciplinary inquiry into the sociomaterial dynamics of risk in AI development.
2. Give AI developers a means of apprehending risk that is grounded in their situated practices.
3. Inform the ongoing evolution of general risk management frameworks for AI.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling argument that a deeper examination of situated practices is needed to fully understand and address the risks of AI. By focusing on the experiences of different stakeholders, it highlights important nuances that are often overlooked in more abstract discussions of AI governance and risk management.

However, the paper does acknowledge some limitations. The ethnographic approach used means the findings may not be easily generalizable across all AI development contexts. Additionally, the paper does not provide detailed prescriptions for how the identified "epistopics of risk" should be incorporated into existing risk management frameworks.

Further research could explore how these situated practices and risk understandings vary across different AI domains, organizational cultures, and regional/national contexts. There may also be value in developing more concrete methodologies for translating insights from situated practices into usable risk management tools and guidelines.

Overall, the paper makes a strong case for the importance of grounding AI risk research in the real-world experiences of those most directly involved in developing and deploying these powerful technologies. This type of nuanced, practice-oriented approach could lead to more effective and contextually-appropriate strategies for societal adaptation to advanced AI.

Conclusion

This paper challenges the assumption that the risks of AI can be fully addressed through general risk management frameworks. Instead, it argues that a deeper understanding of the situated practices of different AI stakeholders is needed to apprehend and respond to these risks effectively.

By surfacing the "epistopics of risk" that shape how regulators, developers, and cybersecurity experts understand and manage AI risks, the research provides a foundation for more grounded, interdisciplinary inquiry. This can inform both the work of AI practitioners and the ongoing evolution of broader risk management strategies, ultimately helping to ensure the safe and responsible development of advanced AI systems.