arXiv AI By Mark Burgess

Legal Responsibilities Using Autonomous Agents For Artificial Intelligence

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 08022v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, which were reported escaping their containment `unintentionally' to gain unauthorized access, pose looming questions about who or what should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jul 24

Regulating autonomous and agentic AI

arXiv:2607. 21345v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulating activities where regulatees use autonomous and agentic AI is challenging.

By Chris Reed, Alex Austria, Anmol Bharuka, Pragnitha Mandava, Khushiya Mujawar, Luka Shakhkulashvili
arXiv AI
Sep 23

Beyond Predictable Paths: Redefining AI Security Incident Reporting for Agents

The paper discusses the need to adapt incident reporting frameworks for AI agents, which are rapidly deployed and face unique security challenges. By comparing AI systems and agents and consulting 23 experts, the authors identify key reporting elements such as agent memory, autonomy levels, and tool usage. They also highlight open research questions, potential reporting weaknesses like data leakage, and outline privacy requirements for secure AI agent deployment.

By Anastasia Pustozerova, Eugene Bagdasarian, Luca Beurer-Kellner, Battista Biggio, Nico Ebert, David Filip, Marc Fischer, Heather Frase, David Hofer, Juliane Hoffmann, Daphne Ippolito, Somesh Jha, Sean McGregor, Esfandiar Mohammadi, Luca Nannini, Cristina Nita-Rotaru, Alina Oprea, Kevin Paeth, Andrew Paverd, Jonathan Petit, Andreas Rauber, Christian Riess, John Sotiropoulos, Andreas Wespi, Kathrin Grosse
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

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.

By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti