arXiv AI By Long Hoang Nguyen, Eva Sp\"athe, Sebastian Lins, Ali Sunyaev

No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 12104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms.

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
Sep 15

AI Deployment Accountability Engineering: A Vision for Accountable AI in Safety-Critical Socio-Technical Systems

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.

By Murat Kantarcioglu
arXiv AI
Jul 1

A Technical Typology of AI Systems in Public Administration

arXiv:2606. 31755v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems.

By Jonathan Rystr{\o}m, Chris Schmitz, Nathan Davies, Gerhard Hammerschmid, Albert Meijer, Chris Russell
arXiv AI
Jun 26

The Governance Inversion Hypothesis: Why More AI Regulation May Produce Less Organisational Control

arXiv:2606. 26117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems.

By Victor Frimpong