Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders

The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts---such as Model Cards, Transparency Notes, and Data Cards---to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. While originally designed to scaffold and document AI development processes in technology companies, these artifacts are becoming central components of regulatory compliance under recent regulations such as the EU AI Act. Much of the existing literature has focussed primarily on the design of new RAI artifacts, or an examination of their use by practitioners within technology companies. However, as RAI artifacts begin to play key roles in enabling external oversight, it becomes critical to understand how stakeholders---particularly stakeholders situated outside of technology companies who govern and audit industry AI deployments---perceive the efficacy of RAI artifacts. In this study, we conduct semi-structured interviews and design activities with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. While participants believe that RAI artifacts are a valuable contribution to the RAI ecosystem, many have concerns around their potential unintended and longer-term impacts on actors outside of technology companies (e.g., downstream end-users, policymakers, civil society stakeholders). We organized these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry, impeding civil society and legal stakeholders' ability to protect downstream end-users from potential AI harms. Participants envision how structural changes, along with changes in how RAI artifacts are designed, used, and governed, could help re-direct the role and impacts of artifacts in the RAI ecosystem. Drawing on these findings, we discuss research and policy implications for RAI artifacts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Published
2024-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31669
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.05

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders

Daricia Wilkinson, Anna Kawakami, Alexandra Chouldechova
2 citations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
1.05
article

Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders

Daricia Wilkinson, Anna Kawakami, Alexandra Chouldechova
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts---such as Model Cards, Transparency Notes, and Data Cards---to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. While originally designed to scaffold and document AI development processes in technology companies, these artifacts are becoming central components of regulatory compliance under recent regulations such as the EU AI Act. Much of the existing literature has focussed primarily on the design of new RAI artifacts, or an examination of their use by practitioners within technology companies. However, as RAI artifacts begin to play key roles in enabling external oversight, it becomes critical to understand how stakeholders---particularly stakeholders situated outside of technology companies who govern and audit industry AI deployments---perceive the efficacy of RAI artifacts. In this study, we conduct semi-structured interviews and design activities with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. While participants believe that RAI artifacts are a valuable contribution to the RAI ecosystem, many have concerns around their potential unintended and longer-term impacts on actors outside of technology companies (e.g., downstream end-users, policymakers, civil society stakeholders). We organized these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry, impeding civil society and legal stakeholders' ability to protect downstream end-users from potential AI harms. Participants envision how structural changes, along with changes in how RAI artifacts are designed, used, and governed, could help re-direct the role and impacts of artifacts in the RAI ecosystem. Drawing on these findings, we discuss research and policy implications for RAI artifacts.

Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietyVol. 7
Microsoft Research (United Kingdom) (GB), Arizona State University (US), Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Microsoft Research
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
1.05
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.