International Insights on AI Risk: Comparative Analysis of International Organizations

Artificial intelligence is an important technology in our lives by facilitating solutions to daily life and business life. States have started to actively use AI in their processes. With the rapid development and popularity of artificial intelligence, there are reflections of many risk groups. In order to manage these risks, studies on risk mitigation frameworks are being carried out by various international organizations. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of risk and awareness studies conducted by OECD, EU, UN, UNESCO, IEEE and ISO. It aims to provide insights into the debate on AI risks from an international perspective. For each document, key objectives, principles, implementation mechanisms and scopes are examined. Key focus areas are analyzed by examining official and policy documents. Our findings reveal both similarities and differences. While a common finding across all studies is the emphasis on fundamental rights and human values, there are differences in methodologies. OECD and EU adopt a more regulatory and guiding stance. IEEE and ISO continue their efforts to create global standards through standardization. While the UN focuses on AI within the scope of sustainability goals, UNESCO offers recommendations for global ethics. The paper helps to gain insights into the debate on AI risks from an international perspective

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-09-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/idap64064.2024.10711117
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Economic Sanctions and International Relations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.26
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

International Insights on AI Risk: Comparative Analysis of International Organizations

Osman Akın, Seda İpek AKSOY ERCAN
2 citations
Economic Sanctions and International Relations
2.26
article

International Insights on AI Risk: Comparative Analysis of International Organizations

Osman Akın, Seda İpek AKSOY ERCAN
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is an important technology in our lives by facilitating solutions to daily life and business life. States have started to actively use AI in their processes. With the rapid development and popularity of artificial intelligence, there are reflections of many risk groups. In order to manage these risks, studies on risk mitigation frameworks are being carried out by various international organizations. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of risk and awareness studies conducted by OECD, EU, UN, UNESCO, IEEE and ISO. It aims to provide insights into the debate on AI risks from an international perspective. For each document, key objectives, principles, implementation mechanisms and scopes are examined. Key focus areas are analyzed by examining official and policy documents. Our findings reveal both similarities and differences. While a common finding across all studies is the emphasis on fundamental rights and human values, there are differences in methodologies. OECD and EU adopt a more regulatory and guiding stance. IEEE and ISO continue their efforts to create global standards through standardization. While the UN focuses on AI within the scope of sustainability goals, UNESCO offers recommendations for global ethics. The paper helps to gain insights into the debate on AI risks from an international perspective

Ostim Technical University (TR)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Economic Sanctions and International Relations
2.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.