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: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: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:2408. 02379v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Developing and certifying safe - or so-called trustworthy - AI has become an increasingly salient issue, especially in light of upcoming regulation such as the EU AI Act.
arXiv:2607. 02197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The society and emerging risk-based regulatory frameworks for AI underscore the need for rigorous risk assessment to ensure safe and reliable AI systems.
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...
The article examines how AI policies implemented by software organisations affect developers, using insights from 19 interviews. It finds that while such policies aim to reduce risks like data leaks and unauthorized use, they can also impede developers if not properly engaged. The authors propose developer‑centric strategies to help managers and decision makers implement effective AI policies.
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.
arXiv:2607. 06608v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present key challenges and future research directions in the security and privacy of agentic AI, based on a horizon-scanning exercise that brought together thirty leading international experts from academia, industry, and government to engage in focused discussions and collaborative exercises on the emerging risks associated with the growing agency of AI.
The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.
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:2607. 26064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems are becoming autonomous research agents that generate hypotheses, design experiments, and produce discoveries at scales beyond human oversight.