AI Governance: Shifting from Explainability to Outcome-Based Regulations

In a world driven by technological advancements, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought about numerous benefits and possibilities. However, the field of AI also presents unique challenges, particularly when it comes to explainability. The question arises: should we deprive the world of partially explainable technologies when we have the opportunity to ensure they bring benefit while minimizing potential harm? This article explores the need for a different approach to AI governance, specifically focusing on the importance of measurement and assessing AI safety.

The Challenges of Regulating AI

As AI becomes more prevalent, the need for regulation has become increasingly apparent. US lawmakers, who initially sought to regulate AI, quickly realized the complexities associated with explainability. The challenge lies in understanding and defining how AI systems make decisions and considering the potential risks they pose. Therefore, there is a growing recognition that traditional regulatory approaches may not be sufficient to address the unique nature of AI. A different approach to AI governance is imperative to effectively manage this complex technology.

The Role of Randomized Controlled Trials in Assessing Risk

To assess the risk of harm and reduce uncertainty, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been widely used in various fields. RCTs provide a framework for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments, interventions, and policies. However, when it comes to AI, the classical RCT may not be fit for purpose in assessing the specific risks associated with these systems. Still, the underlying principle of rigorous measurement can be adopted to develop a similar framework, such as A/B testing, that can continuously measure the outcomes of an AI system.

Limitations of Randomized Control Studies for AI Risks

While RCTs have proven valuable in their original context, they may not be the ideal approach for assessing AI risks. The fundamental mismatch lies in the fact that AI systems evolve, learn, and adapt over time, making it challenging to capture their potential risks through controlled experiments. However, there is potential utility in leveraging a similar framework like A/B testing. A/B testing has been extensively used in product development, where different user groups are treated differently to measure the impacts of specific features. This approach could be adapted to assess the outcomes of AI systems perpetually.

A/B Testing in Product Development

A/B testing has become a cornerstone technique in product development, enabling companies to evaluate the impact of changes and features on user experiences and behaviors. By dividing users into different groups and exposing them to variations, A/B testing provides a quantitative measure of the effectiveness of certain product or experiential features. This methodology can be adapted to assess the outcomes and potential harm of AI systems. By comparing the outputs of AI algorithms on different populations, a quantitative and tested framework for determining their harmfulness and safety can be established.

Effective Measurement of AI Safety

In the context of AI, the measurement of safety is crucial to ensure accountability. While explainability may often be subjective and poorly understood, evaluating an AI system based on its outputs on various populations offers a quantitative and tested approach to determine whether the AI algorithm is genuinely harmful. This approach shifts the focus from subjective explanations to objective measurements. Through effective measurement, the accountability of the AI system is established, allowing the AI provider to take responsibility for the system’s proper functioning and alignment with ethical principles.

Establishing Accountability in AI Systems

Accountability is a crucial aspect of AI systems. The ability to attribute responsibility for the proper functioning and ethical alignment of AI algorithms is essential to prevent harm and ensure trust. By adopting a measurement-based approach, AI providers can demonstrate their commitment to safety and ethical principles. A/B testing, or a similar framework, can provide ongoing measurements of AI system outcomes, allowing for timely adjustments and corrective actions. Establishing accountability in AI systems fosters transparency, responsibility, and adherence to ethical guidelines.

The Value of Measurement Over Subjective Explanability

While explainability remains an area of heightened focus for AI providers and regulators across industries, the techniques first used in healthcare and later adopted in the tech industry to address uncertainty can significantly contribute to achieving the universal goal of safe and intended AI usage. By prioritizing measurements and objective assessments, AI systems can be evaluated on their actual outputs and impacts, rather than relying solely on subjective explanations. This transition allows for a more comprehensive and quantitative evaluation of AI algorithms’ safety and alignment with ethical principles.

Ensuring that AI is Working as Intended and is Safe

The ultimate goal of AI governance is to ensure that AI systems operate as intended and are safe for all stakeholders involved. By continuously measuring and assessing the outcomes of AI algorithms through techniques like A/B testing, the risks associated with these systems can be more effectively identified and mitigated. Moreover, ongoing measurement practices contribute to early detection of potential harm, enabling AI providers to take prompt actions and updates to safeguard against unintended consequences. Measurement serves as a vital tool in guaranteeing the functionality and safety of AI systems in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

As AI technology continues to advance, the regulation and governance of AI systems becomes increasingly critical. Balancing the potential benefits and risks associated with partially explainable technologies is a complex challenge. However, adopting a measurement-based approach can provide a practical and effective solution. By leveraging techniques like A/B testing, AI providers and regulators can continuously measure and assess the safety and ethical alignment of AI systems. Ultimately, the universal goal is to ensure that AI is working as intended and, most importantly, is safe for all stakeholders involved.

Explore more

How Will Vietnam Lead ASEAN’s Shift From 5G to 6G?

The silicon-laden landscape of Southeast Asia is currently witnessing a profound metamorphosis as Vietnam transitions from being a passive consumer of global technology to an assertive architect of its own digital destiny. The narrative of regional connectivity is no longer confined to the deployment of fiber-optic cables or the installation of basic cell towers; instead, it is about the mastery

Ericsson and Telia Partner to Lead Sweden’s Shift to 6G

Deep in the heart of Stockholm, a silent revolution is unfolding as Swedish engineers lay the groundwork for a network capable of connecting billions of sensors and machines with near-instantaneous precision. Sweden is positioning itself to leapfrog the global telecommunications curve, moving beyond the current capabilities of 5G to define the architecture of 6G before international standards are even finalized.

Stablecoins Become Essential to Corporate Finance Strategy

A corporate treasurer in New York can now settle a multi-million dollar supplier invoice with a partner in Singapore at three in the morning on a Sunday without waiting for the traditional banking gates to swing open. This seamless interaction represents a departure from the historical constraints of global commerce, where the movement of value lagged behind the instant nature

How Is Embedded Finance Reshaping the ISV Business Model?

The once-rigid wall separating a business’s operational software and its financial ledger has effectively crumbled as code now functions as a bank. For years, Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) treated payments as a “plug-in” afterthought—a necessary but separate utility handled by third-party gateways. Today, that model is being replaced by a reality where the software itself is the financial institution. As

How to Manage Days of Inventory in Business Central

A warehouse full to the rafters might look like a sign of plenty, but for many businesses, those stationary pallets represent a dangerous evaporation of essential working capital. This specific disconnect serves as a persistent friction point where different departments often fail to find a common language regarding the actual utility of their assets. While a simple stock balance provides

Fill out the form below