Compliance Cards: Computational Artifacts for Automated AI Regulation Compliance
0
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Describes a new concept called "Compliance Cards" that can help automate AI regulation compliance
- Highlights the importance of AI governance and the need for systematic approaches to ensure responsible development and deployment of AI systems
- Introduces Compliance Cards as computational artifacts that capture key information about AI systems to enable automated compliance checks
Plain English Explanation
"Compliance Cards" are a new idea that could help make it easier to ensure AI systems follow the rules and regulations they need to follow. As AI becomes more powerful and widespread, it's important to have good ways to govern and manage AI to make sure it's being used responsibly. Compliance Cards provide a structured way to document key information about an AI system, like what it's used for, how it works, and how it complies with relevant regulations. This information could then be used to automatically check if the AI system is meeting all the required rules and standards, rather than having to do everything manually. The goal is to create a more systematic and scalable approach to AI governance and compliance, rather than relying on ad-hoc or piecemeal methods.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces the concept of "Compliance Cards" as computational artifacts that can capture key information about AI systems to enable automated compliance checks. Compliance Cards: Computational Artifacts for Automated AI Regulation Compliance outlines the motivation for Compliance Cards, describing the growing need for systematic approaches to AI governance and compliance as AI systems become more prevalent.
The paper proposes a standardized Compliance Card template that captures details about an AI system's purpose, architecture, dataset, and regulatory compliance. This structured information could then be used to automatically verify an AI system's adherence to relevant rules and regulations, rather than relying on manual audits. The authors also discuss how Compliance Cards could enable explainability and user compliance by providing clear documentation about an AI system's capabilities and constraints.
Critical Analysis
The Compliance Cards concept presented in the paper offers a promising approach to systematizing AI governance and compliance. By providing a standardized way to document key information about AI systems, Compliance Cards could help address the growing regulatory challenges posed by the rapid development and deployment of AI technologies.
However, the paper does not fully explore some of the potential challenges and limitations of the Compliance Cards approach. For example, it does not address how to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in Compliance Cards, or how to handle cases where the information in Compliance Cards conflicts with the actual behavior of an AI system. Additionally, the paper does not discuss how Compliance Cards would be integrated into existing regulatory frameworks or how they might evolve over time as AI regulations and best practices continue to develop.
Further research and experimentation will be needed to fully validate the effectiveness and scalability of the Compliance Cards approach, as well as to address these and other potential issues. Nonetheless, the core idea of Compliance Cards represents an important step towards more systematic and automated approaches to AI governance and compliance.
Conclusion
The "Compliance Cards" concept presented in this paper offers a novel approach to addressing the growing challenge of ensuring the responsible development and deployment of AI systems. By providing a standardized way to document key information about AI systems, Compliance Cards could enable more automated and scalable compliance checks, helping to bridge the regulatory gap that currently exists in many AI domains.
While further research is needed to fully validate the Compliance Cards approach, the core idea represents an important contribution to the field of AI governance. As AI continues to permeate more aspects of our lives, systematic and scalable approaches like Compliance Cards will become increasingly crucial for maintaining public trust and promoting the responsible use of these powerful technologies.
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
🤖
0
Compliance Cards: Computational Artifacts for Automated AI Regulation Compliance
Bill Marino, Yaqub Chaudhary, Yulu Pi, Rui-Jie Yew, Preslav Aleksandrov, Carwyn Rahman, William F. Shen, Isaac Robinson, Nicholas D. Lane
As the AI supply chain grows more complex, AI systems and models are increasingly likely to incorporate multiple internally- or externally-sourced components such as datasets and (pre-trained) models. In such cases, determining whether or not the aggregate AI system or model complies with the EU AI Act (AIA) requires a multi-step process in which compliance-related information about both the AI system or model and all its component parts is: (1) gathered, potentially from multiple arms-length sources; (2) harmonized, if necessary; (3) inputted into an analysis that looks across all of it to render a compliance prediction. Because this process is so complex and time-consuming, it threatens to overburden the limited compliance resources of the AI providers (i.e., developers) who bear much of the responsibility for complying with the AIA. It also renders rapid or real-time compliance analyses infeasible in many AI development scenarios where they would be beneficial to providers. To address these shortcomings, we introduce a complete system for automating provider-side AIA compliance analyses amidst a complex AI supply chain. This system has two key elements. First is an interlocking set of computational, multi-stakeholder transparency artifacts that capture AIA-specific metadata about both: (1) the provider's overall AI system or model; and (2) the datasets and pre-trained models it incorporates as components. Second is an algorithm that operates across all those artifacts to render a real-time prediction about whether or not the aggregate AI system or model complies with the AIA. All told, this system promises to dramatically facilitate and democratize provider-side AIA compliance analyses (and, perhaps by extension, provider-side AIA compliance).
Read more9/16/2024
0
AI Cards: Towards an Applied Framework for Machine-Readable AI and Risk Documentation Inspired by the EU AI Act
Delaram Golpayegani, Isabelle Hupont, Cecilia Panigutti, Harshvardhan J. Pandit, Sven Schade, Declan O'Sullivan, Dave Lewis
With the upcoming enforcement of the EU AI Act, documentation of high-risk AI systems and their risk management information will become a legal requirement playing a pivotal role in demonstration of compliance. Despite its importance, there is a lack of standards and guidelines to assist with drawing up AI and risk documentation aligned with the AI Act. This paper aims to address this gap by providing an in-depth analysis of the AI Act's provisions regarding technical documentation, wherein we particularly focus on AI risk management. On the basis of this analysis, we propose AI Cards as a novel holistic framework for representing a given intended use of an AI system by encompassing information regarding technical specifications, context of use, and risk management, both in human- and machine-readable formats. While the human-readable representation of AI Cards provides AI stakeholders with a transparent and comprehensible overview of the AI use case, its machine-readable specification leverages on state of the art Semantic Web technologies to embody the interoperability needed for exchanging documentation within the AI value chain. This brings the flexibility required for reflecting changes applied to the AI system and its context, provides the scalability needed to accommodate potential amendments to legal requirements, and enables development of automated tools to assist with legal compliance and conformity assessment tasks. To solidify the benefits, we provide an exemplar AI Card for an AI-based student proctoring system and further discuss its potential applications within and beyond the context of the AI Act.
Read more6/27/2024
🏋️
2
The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview
Nuno Sousa e Silva
This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. A definition of key concepts follows, and then the material and territorial scope, as well as the timing of application, are analyzed. Although the Regulation does not explicitly set out principles, the main ideas of fairness, accountability, transparency, and equity in AI underly a set of rules of the regulation. This is discussed before looking at the ill-defined set of forbidden AI practices (manipulation and e exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring, biometric identification and classification, and predictive policing). It is highlighted that those rules deal with behaviors rather than AI systems. The qualification and regulation of high-risk AI systems are tackled, alongside the obligation of transparency for certain systems, the regulation of general-purpose models, and the rules on certification, supervision, and sanctions. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose of promoting responsible innovation within the European Union and beyond its borders.
Read more9/4/2024
0
An Open Knowledge Graph-Based Approach for Mapping Concepts and Requirements between the EU AI Act and International Standards
Julio Hernandez, Delaram Golpayegani, Dave Lewis
The many initiatives on trustworthy AI result in a confusing and multipolar landscape that organizations operating within the fluid and complex international value chains must navigate in pursuing trustworthy AI. The EU's AI Act will now shift the focus of such organizations toward conformance with the technical requirements for regulatory compliance, for which the Act relies on Harmonized Standards. Though a high-level mapping to the Act's requirements will be part of such harmonization, determining the degree to which standards conformity delivers regulatory compliance with the AI Act remains a complex challenge. Variance and gaps in the definitions of concepts and how they are used in requirements between the Act and harmonized standards may impact the consistency of compliance claims across organizations, sectors, and applications. This may present regulatory uncertainty, especially for SMEs and public sector bodies relying on standards conformance rather than proprietary equivalents for developing and deploying compliant high-risk AI systems. To address this challenge, this paper offers a simple and repeatable mechanism for mapping the terms and requirements relevant to normative statements in regulations and standards, e.g., AI Act and ISO management system standards, texts into open knowledge graphs. This representation is used to assess the adequacy of standards conformance to regulatory compliance and thereby provide a basis for identifying areas where further technical consensus development in trustworthy AI value chains is required to achieve regulatory compliance.
Read more8/23/2024