The Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix: Models for Classifying AI Systems

Overview

• Organisations are increasingly committing to high-level ethical principles for artificial intelligence (AI) systems
• However, there is a gap between these principles and their practical implementation
• One major obstacle is the lack of a well-defined material scope for AI ethics - i.e., which systems and processes should AI ethics principles apply to
• This paper reviews and compares previous attempts to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing AI governance

Plain English Explanation

Organisations that design and use AI are promising to follow ethical principles, but they are struggling to actually put these principles into practice. One big challenge is that it's unclear exactly which AI systems and processes these ethical principles should apply to.

There is no universally accepted definition of what counts as an "AI system," and different types of AI pose different ethical challenges. But to make progress, we need to be able to group AI systems in a way that helps us figure out how to actually govern and regulate them.

This paper looks at different ways that researchers have tried to classify AI systems in order to put AI ethics into action. It compares three main "mental models" or approaches they have used:

1. The Switch: A binary approach that says a system either is or isn't an AI system based on its characteristics.
2. The Ladder: A risk-based approach that classifies systems based on the level of ethical risk they pose.
3. The Matrix: A multi-dimensional approach that considers factors like the system's context, data inputs, and decision-making model.

Each of these classification models has its own strengths and weaknesses. By understanding these different ways of thinking about AI systems, the authors hope to give organisations the conceptual tools they need to actually implement AI governance in the real world.

Technical Explanation

The paper reviews and compares three main mental models or approaches that researchers have used to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing AI governance:

1. The Switch: A binary approach that classifies systems as either AI or not AI based on their characteristics. This is a simple and intuitive model, but it struggles to account for the nuances and gray areas in what constitutes an "AI system."

2. The Ladder: A risk-based approach that classifies systems according to the level of ethical risk they pose. This model acknowledges that different AI systems raise different ethical concerns, but determining risk levels can be subjective and challenging.

3. The Matrix: A multi-dimensional classification that considers factors like the system's context, data inputs, and decision-making model. This is a more robust and flexible approach, but it can also be more complex to apply in practice.

The paper analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each model, noting that organizations attempting to implement ethical and inclusive AI will need to carefully consider the trade-offs between simplicity, nuance, and practicality when choosing how to classify the AI systems they design and deploy.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a helpful conceptual framework for thinking about how to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing ethical governance. However, it acknowledges that determining the appropriate classification model in practice can be challenging and subjective.

One limitation is that the paper focuses mainly on high-level conceptual models, without delving into the nitty-gritty details of how each model would be applied. More research may be needed to develop practical, multilevel governance frameworks that organizations can use to operationalize AI ethics across diverse AI systems.

Additionally, the paper does not address the potential for these classification models to evolve over time as AI technologies and use cases continue to rapidly advance. Flexible and adaptive approaches may be needed to keep pace with the "journey to trustworthy AI".

Overall, the paper provides a valuable starting point for organizations grappling with the challenge of implementing ethical and inclusive AI. But more work is likely needed to translate these conceptual ideas into robust, practical solutions.

Conclusion

This paper tackles the challenge of how to define the material scope of AI ethics - i.e., which systems and processes should ethical principles for AI apply to. It reviews and compares three main mental models or approaches that researchers have used to classify AI systems: the Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix.

Each of these classification models has its own strengths and weaknesses, highlighting the inherent complexity and nuance involved in determining which AI systems should be subject to ethical governance. By outlining these conceptual frameworks, the paper aims to give organizations the tools they need to operationalize AI ethics in practice.

As AI systems become ever more sophisticated and pervasive, developing robust and adaptive approaches to AI governance will be crucial. This paper takes an important step towards that goal, but more research will likely be needed to translate these ideas into workable solutions that keep pace with the rapidly evolving AI landscape.