SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Andrew Selbst

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Selbst.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

What We Know about Responsible AI Practices in Industry: A Half Decade of Empirical Research

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

cs.HC

Distinguishing Task-Specific and General-Purpose AI in Regulation

Over the past decade, policymakers have developed a set of regulatory tools to ensure AI development aligns with key societal goals. Many of these tools were initially developed in response to concerns with task-specific AI and therefore encode certain assumptions about the nature of AI systems and the utility of certain regulatory approaches. With the advent of general-purpose AI (GPAI), however, some of these assumptions no longer hold, even as policymakers attempt to maintain a single regulatory target that covers both types of AI. In this paper, we identify four distinct aspects of GPAI that call for meaningfully different policy responses. These are the generality and adaptability of GPAI that make it a poor regulatory target, the difficulty of designing effective evaluations, new legal concerns that change the ecosystem of stakeholders and sources of expertise, and the distributed structure of the GPAI value chain. In light of these distinctions, policymakers will need to evaluate where the past decade of policy work remains relevant and where new policies, designed to address the unique risks posed by GPAI, are necessary. We outline three recommendations for policymakers to more effectively identify regulatory targets and leverage constraints across the broader ecosystem to govern GPAI.

cs.CY