arXiv subjects

Saleh Afroogh

Publications and source records attributed to Saleh Afroogh.

24 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2025

IGGA: A Dataset of Industrial Guidelines and Policy Statements for Generative AIs

This paper introduces IGGA, a dataset of 160 industry guidelines and policy statements for the use of Generative AIs (GAIs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) in industry and workplace settings, collected from official company websites, and trustworthy news sources. The dataset contains 104,565 words and serves as a valuable resource for natural language processing tasks commonly applied in requirements engineering, such as model synthesis, abstraction identification, and document structure assessment. Additionally, IGGA can be further annotated to function as a benchmark for various tasks, including ambiguity detection, requirements categorization, and the identification of equivalent requirements. Our methodologically rigorous approach ensured a thorough examination, with a selection of reputable and influential companies that represent a diverse range of global institutions across six continents. The dataset captures perspectives from fourteen industry sectors, including technology, finance, and both public and private institutions, offering a broad spectrum of insights into the integration of GAIs and LLMs in industry.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

AGGA: A Dataset of Academic Guidelines for Generative AI and Large Language Models

This study introduces AGGA, a dataset comprising 80 academic guidelines for the use of Generative AIs (GAIs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) in academic settings, meticulously collected from official university websites. The dataset contains 188,674 words and serves as a valuable resource for natural language processing tasks commonly applied in requirements engineering, such as model synthesis, abstraction identification, and document structure assessment. Additionally, AGGA can be further annotated to function as a benchmark for various tasks, including ambiguity detection, requirements categorization, and the identification of equivalent requirements. Our methodologically rigorous approach ensured a thorough examination, with a selection of universities that represent a diverse range of global institutions, including top-ranked universities across six continents. The dataset captures perspectives from a variety of academic fields, including humanities, technology, and both public and private institutions, offering a broad spectrum of insights into the integration of GAIs and LLMs in academia.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

When Trust is Zero Sum: Automation Threat to Epistemic Agency

AI researchers and ethicists have long worried about the threat that automation poses to human dignity, autonomy, and to the sense of personal value that is tied to work. Typically, proposed solutions to this problem focus on ways in which we can reduce the number of job losses which result from automation, ways to retrain those that lose their jobs, or ways to mitigate the social consequences of those job losses. However, even in cases where workers keep their jobs, their agency within them might be severely downgraded. For instance, human employees might work alongside AI but not be allowed to make decisions or not be allowed to make decisions without consulting with or coming to agreement with the AI. This is a kind of epistemic harm (which could be an injustice if it is distributed on the basis of identity prejudice). It diminishes human agency (in constraining people's ability to act independently), and it fails to recognize the workers' epistemic agency as qualified experts. Workers, in this case, aren't given the trust they are entitled to. This means that issues of human dignity remain even in cases where everyone keeps their job. Further, job retention focused solutions, such as designing an algorithm to work alongside the human employee, may only enable these harms. Here, we propose an alternative design solution, adversarial collaboration, which addresses the traditional retention problem of automation, but also addresses the larger underlying problem of epistemic harms and the distribution of trust between AI and humans in the workplace.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions

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.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

Tracing app technology: An ethical review in the COVID-19 era and directions for post-COVID-19

We conducted a systematic literature review on the ethical considerations of the use of contact tracing app technology, which was extensively implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid and extensive use of this technology during the COVID-19 pandemic, while benefiting the public well-being by providing information about people's mobility and movements to control the spread of the virus, raised several ethical concerns for the post-COVID-19 era. To investigate these concerns for the post-pandemic situation and provide direction for future events, we analyzed the current ethical frameworks, research, and case studies about the ethical usage of tracing app technology. The results suggest there are seven essential ethical considerations, namely privacy, security, acceptability, government surveillance, transparency, justice, and voluntariness in the ethical use of contact tracing technology. In this paper, we explain and discuss these considerations and how they are needed for the ethical usage of this technology. The findings also highlight the importance of developing integrated guidelines and frameworks for implementation of such technology in the post-COVID-19 world.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2021

A Contextualist Decision Theory

Decision theorists propose a normative theory of rational choice. Traditionally, they assume that they should provide some constant and invariant principles as criteria for rational decisions, and indirectly, for agents. They seek a decision theory that invaribably works for all agents all the time. They believe that a rational agent should follow a certain principle, perhaps the principle of maximizing expected utility everywhere, all the time. As a result of the given context, these principles are considered, in this sense, context-independent. Furthermore, decision theorists usually assume that the relevant agents at work are ideal agents, and they believe that non-ideal agents should follow them so that their decisions qualify as rational. These principles are universal rules. I will refer to this context-independent and universal approach in traditional decision theory as Invariantism. This approach is, implicitly or explicitly, adopted by theories which are proposed on the basis of these two assumptions.

econ.GN↗