arXiv:2607. 15480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly impact society, ensuring their ethical and trustworthy deployment has become a global priority.
arXiv:2607. 15992v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings.
Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness.
The paper argues that AI governance should rely on ISO-like interoperability protocols rather than solely on jurisdiction-specific laws. It proposes standardized AI nutrition labels that include metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to enable machine‑readable risk communication across borders. These protocols aim to reduce regulatory fragmentation, lower barriers for SMEs, and build public trust while allowing modular evolution with technology.
arXiv:2508. 09219v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in AI applications have raised growing concerns about the need for ethical guidelines and regulations to mitigate the risks posed by these technologies.
arXiv:2606. 00621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is now produced.
The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
arXiv:2411.08881v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI-based systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs), impact millions by supporting diverse tasks but face issues like misinformation, bi...
We’ve contributed to a multi-stakeholder report by 58 co-authors at 30 organizations, including the Centre for the Future of Intelligence, Mila, Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and Center for Security and Emerging Technologies. This report describes 10 mechanisms to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems.
arXiv:2606. 12423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into critical infrastructure including healthcare, finance, energy, and defense, offers transformative benefits but also conflicts with evolving regulatory and governance frameworks.
The paper proposes AI Deployment Accountability Engineering (ADAE), a new subdiscipline focused on establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for AI systems once they are deployed. ADAE treats accountability as a deployment-layer property, aiming to ensure systems remain within acceptable risk limits, identify failure contexts, attribute failures across technical and human components, and translate technical failures into downstream consequences. The authors outline a research agenda built around four pillars—structured discovery of context-dependent failure modes, privacy-preserving accountability measurement, system-level risk analysis for agentic AI, and translation of technical failures into operational and institutional risks—to support timely intervention in safety-critical socio-technical environments.
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
arXiv:2608. 14562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI governance is shifting from voluntary ethics to enforceable, risk-based regulation, yet cross-jurisdictional divergence creates compliance uncertainty for operators of high-stakes AI.