AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024): From Government Regulations to Corporate Policies
2406.17864
0
0
Abstract
We present a comprehensive AI risk taxonomy derived from eight government policies from the European Union, United States, and China and 16 company policies worldwide, making a significant step towards establishing a unified language for generative AI safety evaluation. We identify 314 unique risk categories organized into a four-tiered taxonomy. At the highest level, this taxonomy encompasses System & Operational Risks, Content Safety Risks, Societal Risks, and Legal & Rights Risks. The taxonomy establishes connections between various descriptions and approaches to risk, highlighting the overlaps and discrepancies between public and private sector conceptions of risk. By providing this unified framework, we aim to advance AI safety through information sharing across sectors and the promotion of best practices in risk mitigation for generative AI models and systems.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a comprehensive framework for categorizing AI risks, called the "AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024)," which bridges the gap between government regulations and corporate policies.
- The framework aims to help organizations and policymakers better understand, assess, and manage the diverse risks associated with the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
- The paper explores the evolving landscape of AI risk management, drawing insights from recent research and real-world case studies.
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a new system for classifying the different types of risks that can arise from the use of AI technologies. This system, called the "AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024)," is designed to help organizations and governments better understand, assess, and address these risks.
The researchers behind this framework recognize that as AI systems become more advanced and widely adopted, the potential for harm or unintended consequences also increases. This work builds on previous research on AI risk management and the implications of large-scale AI systems for society.
The AIR 2024 framework aims to provide a clear and comprehensive way to categorize the various risks associated with AI, from legal and regulatory issues to ethical concerns and potential security breaches. By having a shared understanding of these risks, policymakers and corporate leaders can work together to develop appropriate safeguards and best practices for the responsible development and deployment of AI.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents the "AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024)" framework, which organizes AI risks into four main categories: Legal and Regulatory, Ethical and Social, Security and Safety, and Operational and Financial.
Within each of these categories, the framework identifies specific subcategories of risk, such as:
- Legal and Regulatory: Compliance with laws and regulations, intellectual property issues, and data privacy concerns.
- Ethical and Social: Bias and fairness, transparency and accountability, and the societal impact of AI.
- Security and Safety: Cybersecurity threats, system failures, and the potential for misuse or malicious use of AI.
- Operational and Financial: Cost overruns, technical failures, and the financial risks associated with AI deployment.
The paper draws on real-world case studies and recent research to illustrate how the AIR 2024 framework can be applied in practice. For example, the paper discusses the implications of rapidly advancing AI capabilities and the need for robust risk management strategies.
Additionally, the authors highlight the importance of aligning government regulations and corporate policies to ensure a comprehensive approach to AI risk management. This builds on previous work on the role of governance and public perceptions in shaping the development of large-scale AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The AIR 2024 framework presented in this paper offers a valuable tool for organizations and policymakers to navigate the complex and evolving landscape of AI risks. However, the authors acknowledge that the framework is not exhaustive, and there may be emerging risks or unique context-specific considerations that are not fully captured.
Additionally, the paper highlights the need for ongoing research and collaboration between industry, academia, and government to refine and expand the AIR 2024 framework as AI technology continues to progress. This aligns with calls for the development of robust evaluation frameworks to advance AI safety.
One potential limitation of the framework is its reliance on existing case studies and research, which may not fully account for the rapid pace of innovation in the AI field. As new AI capabilities emerge, the risks and their categorization may evolve, requiring regular updates and adaptations to the framework.
Conclusion
The "AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024)" framework presented in this paper offers a comprehensive and practical approach to understanding, assessing, and managing the diverse risks associated with the deployment of AI systems. By bridging the gap between government regulations and corporate policies, the framework can help organizations and policymakers work together to ensure the responsible development and use of AI technology.
As AI continues to advance and become more pervasive in our lives, the importance of effective risk management strategies will only grow. The AIR 2024 framework provides a valuable tool for navigating this complex landscape and promoting the safe and ethical use of AI for the benefit of society.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
⚙️
A Legal Risk Taxonomy for Generative Artificial Intelligence
David Atkinson, Jacob Morrison
0
0
For the first time, this paper presents a taxonomy of legal risks associated with generative AI (GenAI) by breaking down complex legal concepts to provide a common understanding of potential legal challenges for developing and deploying GenAI models. The methodology is based on (1) examining the legal claims that have been filed in existing lawsuits and (2) evaluating the reasonably foreseeable legal claims that may be filed in future lawsuits. First, we identified 29 lawsuits against prominent GenAI entities and tallied the claims of each lawsuit. From there, we identified seven claims that are cited at least four times across these lawsuits as the most likely claims for future GenAI lawsuits. For each of these seven claims, we describe the elements of the claim (what the plaintiff must prove to prevail) and provide an example of how it may apply to GenAI. Next, we identified 30 other potential claims that we consider to be more speculative, because they have been included in fewer than four lawsuits or have yet to be filed. We further separated those 30 claims into 19 that are most likely to be made in relation to pre-deployment of GenAI models and 11 that are more likely to be made in connection with post-deployment of GenAI models since the legal risks will vary between entities that create versus deploy them. For each of these claims, we describe the elements of the claim and the potential remedies that plaintiffs may seek to help entities determine their legal risks in developing or deploying GenAI. Lastly, we close the paper by noting the novelty of GenAI technology and propose some applications for the paper's taxonomy in driving further research.
5/27/2024
AI Risk Management Should Incorporate Both Safety and Security
Xiangyu Qi, Yangsibo Huang, Yi Zeng, Edoardo Debenedetti, Jonas Geiping, Luxi He, Kaixuan Huang, Udari Madhushani, Vikash Sehwag, Weijia Shi, Boyi Wei, Tinghao Xie, Danqi Chen, Pin-Yu Chen, Jeffrey Ding, Ruoxi Jia, Jiaqi Ma, Arvind Narayanan, Weijie J Su, Mengdi Wang, Chaowei Xiao, Bo Li, Dawn Song, Peter Henderson, Prateek Mittal
0
0
The exposure of security vulnerabilities in safety-aligned language models, e.g., susceptibility to adversarial attacks, has shed light on the intricate interplay between AI safety and AI security. Although the two disciplines now come together under the overarching goal of AI risk management, they have historically evolved separately, giving rise to differing perspectives. Therefore, in this paper, we advocate that stakeholders in AI risk management should be aware of the nuances, synergies, and interplay between safety and security, and unambiguously take into account the perspectives of both disciplines in order to devise mostly effective and holistic risk mitigation approaches. Unfortunately, this vision is often obfuscated, as the definitions of the basic concepts of safety and security themselves are often inconsistent and lack consensus across communities. With AI risk management being increasingly cross-disciplinary, this issue is particularly salient. In light of this conceptual challenge, we introduce a unified reference framework to clarify the differences and interplay between AI safety and AI security, aiming to facilitate a shared understanding and effective collaboration across communities.
5/31/2024
🤖
Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress
Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, Pieter Abbeel, Trevor Darrell, Yuval Noah Harari, Ya-Qin Zhang, Lan Xue, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Gillian Hadfield, Jeff Clune, Tegan Maharaj, Frank Hutter, At{i}l{i}m Gunec{s} Baydin, Sheila McIlraith, Qiqi Gao, Ashwin Acharya, David Krueger, Anca Dragan, Philip Torr, Stuart Russell, Daniel Kahneman, Jan Brauner, Soren Mindermann
0
0
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI's impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and an irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. Although researchers have warned of extreme risks from AI, there is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Society's response, despite promising first steps, is incommensurate with the possibility of rapid, transformative progress that is expected by many experts. AI safety research is lagging. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems. In this short consensus paper, we describe extreme risks from upcoming, advanced AI systems. Drawing on lessons learned from other safety-critical technologies, we then outline a comprehensive plan combining technical research and development with proactive, adaptive governance mechanisms for a more commensurate preparation.
5/24/2024
🤖
Implications for Governance in Public Perceptions of Societal-scale AI Risks
Ross Gruetzemacher, Toby D. Pilditch, Huigang Liang, Christy Manning, Vael Gates, David Moss, James W. B. Elsey, Willem W. A. Sleegers, Kyle Kilian
0
0
Amid growing concerns over AI's societal risks--ranging from civilizational collapse to misinformation and systemic bias--this study explores the perceptions of AI experts and the general US registered voters on the likelihood and impact of 18 specific AI risks, alongside their policy preferences for managing these risks. While both groups favor international oversight over national or corporate governance, our survey reveals a discrepancy: voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Specifically, our findings indicate that policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks, effectively nullifying the near-vs-long-term debate over AI risks. More broadly, our results will serve not only to enable more substantive policy discussions for preventing and mitigating AI risks, but also to underscore the challenge of consensus building for effective policy implementation.
6/11/2024