SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Carsten Orwat

Publications and source records attributed to Carsten Orwat.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

An approach to systemic risks of AI through the lens of emergence, collective action problems, and externalities

The integration of general-purpose artificial intelligence models into downstream AI systems, among other developments, has given rise to new forms of risk that are more systemic in nature than conventional AI risks. However, there is no generally accepted definition of systemic risks in general and for AI in particular. Conceptualisations of these risks vary across research and regulation. Especially the application of the systemic risk approach to human rights or fundamental rights, like in the EU AI Act, is relatively new, just as the research on the contribution of AI to systemic forms of discrimination, privacy violations, erosions of democracy, or climate and environmental degradation. We argue that some concepts so far have not sufficiently take complexity and emergence into account. Furthermore, this variety of concepts might hinder responsible actors to adequately assess the systemic risks of AI, leading to inadequate prevention and mitigation measures and ineffective governance. To contribute to the understanding of systemic risks of AI, we propose a conceptualisation of systemic risks of AI that considers complex phenomena that lead to the emergence of harms at the societal or global level. We outline systemic risks mainly as complex externalities and collective action problems. Of particular interest are feedback dynamics, processes that lead to market concentration like network effects, algorithmic monocultures, and integration processes of AI supply chains or 'AI ecosystems' and across societal sectors, which can result in structural dominance, (inter-) dependencies, and cascading risks. Further phenomena contributing to systemic risks are information asymmetries, informational emergence, and deficits of the governance and institutional framework.

cs.CY

Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making

Recent proposals aiming at regulating artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making (ADM) suggest a particular form of risk regulation, i.e. a risk-based approach. The most salient example is the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) proposed by the European Commission. The article addresses challenges for adequate risk regulation that arise primarily from the specific type of risks involved, i.e. risks to the protection of fundamental rights and fundamental societal values. They result mainly from the normative ambiguity of the fundamental rights and societal values in interpreting, specifying or operationalising them for risk assessments. This is exemplified for (1) human dignity, (2) informational self-determination, data protection and privacy, (3) justice and fairness, and (4) the common good. Normative ambiguities require normative choices, which are distributed among different actors in the proposed AIA. Particularly critical normative choices are those of selecting normative conceptions for specifying risks, aggregating and quantifying risks including the use of metrics, balancing of value conflicts, setting levels of acceptable risks, and standardisation. To avoid a lack of democratic legitimacy and legal uncertainty, scientific and political debates are suggested.

cs.CY

Tackling problems, harvesting benefits -- A systematic review of the regulatory debate around AI

How to integrate an emerging and all-pervasive technology such as AI into the structures and operations of our society is a question of contemporary politics, science and public debate. It has produced a considerable amount of international academic literature from different disciplines. This article analyzes the academic debate around the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The systematic review comprises a sample of 73 peer-reviewed journal articles published between January 1st, 2016, and December 31st, 2020. The analysis concentrates on societal risks and harms, questions of regulatory responsibility, and possible adequate policy frameworks, including risk-based and principle-based approaches. The main interests are proposed regulatory approaches and instruments. Various forms of interventions such as bans, approvals, standard-setting, and disclosure are presented. The assessments of the included papers indicate the complexity of the field, which shows its prematurity and the remaining lack of clarity. By presenting a structured analysis of the academic debate, we contribute both empirically and conceptually to a better understanding of the nexus of AI and regulation and the underlying normative decisions. A comparison of the scientific proposals with the proposed European AI regulation illustrates the specific approach of the regulation, its strengths and weaknesses.

cs.CY