SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Brandie Nonnecke

Publications and source records attributed to Brandie Nonnecke.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Guardrails versus Gatekeepers: Understanding Product Managers' Ethical Decision-Making in Generative AI

What is the role of product managers in the responsible use of generative AI (genAI) in products and everyday work -- and what enables or constrains their ability to take action? Past literature has examined the ways in which organizational policies can become decoupled from practices when incentives for responsible action are misaligned or impeded by profit motives. While the role of engineers and professional ethicists in the context of AI has been examined in detail, the role of product managers -- who are frequently portrayed as "gatekeepers" or critical decision-makers in product teams -- remains unclear. In this paper, we examine what organizational conditions promote responsible use of genAI by product managers by drawing on twenty-five interviews and a global survey of over three hundred respondents in product management-related roles. We find that uncertainty around responsible AI and a sense of diffused responsibility constrain ethical action, while leadership commitment and organizational principles enable ethical action -- making some responsible practices up to fourteen times more likely. Further, we find two sets of actions product managers take to "recouple" ethical commitments and practices. The first includes low-resource, individual actions product managers can implement without explicit organizational incentives. The second includes high-resource, collective actions that require organizational incentives. Our research suggests recoupling ethical policies and practices at the level of product teams requires institutional buy-in and higher level leadership commitment. Nevertheless, we show that individual actors are able to exhibit agency through some meaningful, low resource actions, even in the absence of organizational incentives, though this alone is insufficient to operationalize responsible AI at scale.

cs.CY

AI Risk-Management Standards Profile for General-Purpose AI (GPAI) and Foundation Models

Increasingly multi-purpose AI models, such as cutting-edge large language models or other 'general-purpose AI' (GPAI) models, 'foundation models,' generative AI models, and 'frontier models' (typically all referred to hereafter with the umbrella term 'GPAI/foundation models' except where greater specificity is needed), can provide many beneficial capabilities but also risks of adverse events with profound consequences. This document provides risk-management practices or controls for identifying, analyzing, and mitigating risks of GPAI/foundation models. We intend this document primarily for developers of large-scale, state-of-the-art GPAI/foundation models; others that can benefit from this guidance include downstream developers of end-use applications that build on a GPAI/foundation model. This document facilitates conformity with or use of leading AI risk management-related standards, adapting and building on the generic voluntary guidance in the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO/IEC 23894, with a focus on the unique issues faced by developers of GPAI/foundation models.

cs.AI

Actionable Guidance for High-Consequence AI Risk Management: Towards Standards Addressing AI Catastrophic Risks

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can provide many beneficial capabilities but also risks of adverse events. Some AI systems could present risks of events with very high or catastrophic consequences at societal scale. The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been developing the NIST Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) as voluntary guidance on AI risk assessment and management for AI developers and others. For addressing risks of events with catastrophic consequences, NIST indicated a need to translate from high level principles to actionable risk management guidance. In this document, we provide detailed actionable-guidance recommendations focused on identifying and managing risks of events with very high or catastrophic consequences, intended as a risk management practices resource for NIST for AI RMF version 1.0 (released in January 2023), or for AI RMF users, or for other AI risk management guidance and standards as appropriate. We also provide our methodology for our recommendations. We provide actionable-guidance recommendations for AI RMF 1.0 on: identifying risks from potential unintended uses and misuses of AI systems; including catastrophic-risk factors within the scope of risk assessments and impact assessments; identifying and mitigating human rights harms; and reporting information on AI risk factors including catastrophic-risk factors. In addition, we provide recommendations on additional issues for a roadmap for later versions of the AI RMF or supplementary publications. These include: providing an AI RMF Profile with supplementary guidance for cutting-edge increasingly multi-purpose or general-purpose AI. We aim for this work to be a concrete risk-management practices contribution, and to stimulate constructive dialogue on how to address catastrophic risks and associated issues in AI standards.

cs.CY