The Journey to Trustworthy AI- Part 1: Pursuit of Pragmatic Frameworks
2403.15457
0
0
Abstract
This paper reviews Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) and its various definitions. Considering the principles respected in any society, TAI is often characterized by a few attributes, some of which have led to confusion in regulatory or engineering contexts. We argue against using terms such as Responsible or Ethical AI as substitutes for TAI. And to help clarify any confusion, we suggest leaving them behind. Given the subjectivity and complexity inherent in TAI, developing a universal framework is deemed infeasible. Instead, we advocate for approaches centered on addressing key attributes and properties such as fairness, bias, risk, security, explainability, and reliability. We examine the ongoing regulatory landscape, with a focus on initiatives in the EU, China, and the USA. We recognize that differences in AI regulations based on geopolitical and geographical reasons pose an additional challenge for multinational companies. We identify risk as a core factor in AI regulation and TAI. For example, as outlined in the EU-AI Act, organizations must gauge the risk level of their AI products to act accordingly (or risk hefty fines). We compare modalities of TAI implementation and how multiple cross-functional teams are engaged in the overall process. Thus, a brute force approach for enacting TAI renders its efficiency and agility, moot. To address this, we introduce our framework Set-Formalize-Measure-Act (SFMA). Our solution highlights the importance of transforming TAI-aware metrics, drivers of TAI, stakeholders, and business/legal requirements into actual benchmarks or tests. Finally, over-regulation driven by panic of powerful AI models can, in fact, harm TAI too. Based on GitHub user-activity data, in 2023, AI open-source projects rose to top projects by contributor account. Enabling innovation in TAI hinges on the independent contributions of the open-source community.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- This paper examines the concept of "trustworthy AI" and the challenges in developing a common definition and pragmatic frameworks for it.
- It explores the differences between viewing trustworthy AI as an attribute versus a property, and the implications for how it should be approached.
- The paper also discusses the need for more collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to establish a shared understanding and practical approaches to trustworthy AI.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at the topic of "trustworthy AI" - what it means and how to actually achieve it in practice. There's a lot of debate around what trustworthy AI really is, with some seeing it as a quality or attribute of an AI system, while others view it more as an inherent property.
The key challenge is that there isn't a clear, agreed-upon definition of trustworthy AI. Different people and organizations have their own ideas of what it should entail, whether that's things like fairness, transparency, robustness, or something else. This lack of a shared understanding makes it difficult to develop practical frameworks and approaches for building trustworthy AI systems.
To address this, the paper argues that we need more collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and the teams actually developing AI. By working together, they can try to establish a common definition and practical guidelines for what trustworthy AI should look like. This would help provide a clear roadmap for organizations trying to develop AI systems that are reliable, responsible, and aligned with human values.
Technical Explanation
The paper first examines the different perspectives on what constitutes "trustworthy AI" - whether it's viewed as an attribute that can be measured and assessed, or a more inherent property of an AI system. <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/trust-ai-progress-challenges-future-directions">This debate reflects ongoing challenges</a> in the field around establishing a shared understanding and concrete frameworks for trustworthy AI.
The authors then discuss the need for more cross-disciplinary collaboration to address this issue. <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/collaborative-human-ai-trust-chai-t-process">They argue that researchers, policymakers, and AI developers</a> need to work together to define the key elements of trustworthy AI and develop practical guidelines for implementation. <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/now-later-lasting-ten-priorities-ai-research">This aligns with broader calls for a more integrated, multi-stakeholder approach</a> to responsible AI development and deployment.
The paper also touches on related concepts like <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/designing-complementarity-conceptual-framework-to-go-beyond">the need for complementarity between human and AI capabilities</a>, and the importance of <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/responsible-reporting-frontier-ai-development">responsible reporting and communication around AI progress and risks</a>. These all contribute to the overall challenge of establishing trust and accountability in the use of AI technologies.
Critical Analysis
The paper rightly identifies the lack of a clear, agreed-upon definition of trustworthy AI as a major obstacle to making progress in this area. However, it doesn't provide much insight into the underlying reasons for this disconnect or specific proposals for how to bridge the gap.
While the call for more collaboration is reasonable, the paper doesn't delve into the practical challenges of getting diverse stakeholders to align on complex technical and ethical issues. Differences in priorities, incentives, and cultural perspectives can make such cross-disciplinary work quite difficult in reality.
Additionally, the paper doesn't address some of the inherent tensions and trade-offs involved in trying to make AI systems "trustworthy." There may be cases where certain trustworthy attributes, like transparency, could conflict with other desirable properties like efficiency or scalability. The paper could have explored these nuances in more depth.
Overall, the paper provides a high-level overview of the challenge, but lacks a more substantive analysis of the underlying issues and potential pathways forward. More specific research and proposals would be needed to truly advance the quest for trustworthy AI.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the crucial, yet elusive, goal of developing trustworthy AI systems. It underscores the lack of a clear, shared definition of what trustworthy AI entails, and the need for greater collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and AI developers to establish common frameworks and pragmatic approaches.
Achieving trustworthy AI is essential as these technologies become increasingly pervasive in our lives. By working together to define the key attributes and implementation strategies, the AI community can help ensure these powerful tools are deployed responsibly and in alignment with human values. However, as the paper alludes to, there are significant technical and cultural challenges that will need to be navigated along the way.
Continued research, debate, and multistakeholder cooperation will be critical to making steady progress towards trustworthy AI - a goal that is essential for realizing the full potential of these transformative technologies while mitigating potential risks and harms.
Related Papers
🎲
Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions
Saleh Afroogh, Ali Akbari, Evan Malone, Mohammadali Kargar, Hananeh Alambeigi
0
0
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our daily life through various applications, services, and products explains the significance of trust/distrust in AI from a user perspective. AI-driven systems (as opposed to other technologies) have ubiquitously diffused in our life not only as some beneficial tools to be used by human agents but also are going to be substitutive agents on our behalf, or manipulative minds that would influence human thought, decision, and agency. Trust/distrust in AI plays the role of a regulator and could significantly control the level of this diffusion, as trust can increase, and distrust may reduce the rate of adoption of AI. Recently, varieties of studies have paid attention to the variant dimension of trust/distrust in AI, and its relevant considerations. In this systematic literature review, after conceptualization of trust in the current AI literature review, we will investigate trust in different types of human-Machine interaction, and its impact on technology acceptance in different domains. In addition to that, we propose a taxonomy of technical (i.e., safety, accuracy, robustness) and non-technical axiological (i.e., ethical, legal, and mixed) trustworthiness metrics, and some trustworthy measurements. Moreover, we examine some major trust-breakers in AI (e.g., autonomy and dignity threat), and trust makers; and propose some future directions and probable solutions for the transition to a trustworthy AI.
4/5/2024
🤖
Developing trustworthy AI applications with foundation models
Michael Mock (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Sebastian Schmidt (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Felix Muller (University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Rebekka Gorge (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Anna Schmitz (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Elena Haedecke (University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Angelika Voss (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Dirk Hecker (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany), Maximillian Poretschkin (Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems IAIS Sankt Augustin, Germany, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany)
0
0
The trustworthiness of AI applications has been the subject of recent research and is also addressed in the EU's recently adopted AI Regulation. The currently emerging foundation models in the field of text, speech and image processing offer completely new possibilities for developing AI applications. This whitepaper shows how the trustworthiness of an AI application developed with foundation models can be evaluated and ensured. For this purpose, the application-specific, risk-based approach for testing and ensuring the trustworthiness of AI applications, as developed in the 'AI Assessment Catalog - Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence' by Fraunhofer IAIS, is transferred to the context of foundation models. Special consideration is given to the fact that specific risks of foundation models can have an impact on the AI application and must also be taken into account when checking trustworthiness. Chapter 1 of the white paper explains the fundamental relationship between foundation models and AI applications based on them in terms of trustworthiness. Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the technical construction of foundation models and Chapter 3 shows how AI applications can be developed based on them. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the resulting risks regarding trustworthiness. Chapter 5 shows which requirements for AI applications and foundation models are to be expected according to the draft of the European Union's AI Regulation and Chapter 6 finally shows the system and procedure for meeting trustworthiness requirements.
5/9/2024
False Sense of Security in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Neo Christopher Chung, Hongkyou Chung, Hearim Lee, Hongbeom Chung, Lennart Brocki, George Dyer
0
0
A cautious interpretation of AI regulations and policy in the EU and the USA place explainability as a central deliverable of compliant AI systems. However, from a technical perspective, explainable AI (XAI) remains an elusive and complex target where even state of the art methods often reach erroneous, misleading, and incomplete explanations. Explainability has multiple meanings which are often used interchangeably, and there are an even greater number of XAI methods - none of which presents a clear edge. Indeed, there are multiple failure modes for each XAI method, which require application-specific development and continuous evaluation. In this paper, we analyze legislative and policy developments in the United States and the European Union, such as the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the AI Act, the AI Liability Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) from a right to explanation perspective. We argue that these AI regulations and current market conditions threaten effective AI governance and safety because the objective of trustworthy, accountable, and transparent AI is intrinsically linked to the questionable ability of AI operators to provide meaningful explanations. Unless governments explicitly tackle the issue of explainability through clear legislative and policy statements that take into account technical realities, AI governance risks becoming a vacuous box-ticking exercise where scientific standards are replaced with legalistic thresholds, providing only a false sense of security in XAI.
5/8/2024
Towards an Ethical and Inclusive Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: A Multidimensional Framework
Ernesto Giralt Hern'andez
0
0
This article analyzes the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on contemporary society and the importance of adopting an ethical approach to its development and implementation within organizations. It examines the technocritical perspective of some philosophers and researchers, who warn of the risks of excessive technologization that could undermine human autonomy. However, the article also acknowledges the active role that various actors, such as governments, academics, and civil society, can play in shaping the development of AI aligned with human and social values. A multidimensional approach is proposed that combines ethics with regulation, innovation, and education. It highlights the importance of developing detailed ethical frameworks, incorporating ethics into the training of professionals, conducting ethical impact audits, and encouraging the participation of stakeholders in the design of AI. In addition, four fundamental pillars are presented for the ethical implementation of AI in organizations: 1) Integrated values, 2) Trust and transparency, 3) Empowering human growth, and 4) Identifying strategic factors. These pillars encompass aspects such as alignment with the company's ethical identity, governance and accountability, human-centered design, continuous training, and adaptability to technological and market changes. The conclusion emphasizes that ethics must be the cornerstone of any organization's strategy that seeks to incorporate AI, establishing a solid framework that ensures that technology is developed and used in a way that respects and promotes human values.
5/6/2024