This page is still being polished. If you have thoughts, please share them via the feedback form.
Data on this page is preliminary and may change. Please do not share or cite these figures publicly.
Laws, legal frameworks, and binding policy instruments governing AI development and use.
Also in Legal & Regulatory
3.1 The intensity of the accountability obligation will vary according to the degree of autonomy and criticality of the AI system. The greater the level of autonomy of the AI system and the greater the criticality of the outcomes that it may produce, the higher the degree of accountability that will apply to the organisation that develops, deploys or uses the AI system.
Reasoning
Establishes governance framework calibrating accountability obligations by system autonomy and criticality.
Ethical Purpose and Societal Benefit
Organisations that develop, deploy or use AI systems and any national laws that regulate such use should require the purposes of such implementation to be identified and ensure that such purposes are consistent with the overall ethical purposes of beneficence and non-maleficence, as well as the other principles of the Policy Framework for Responsible AI.
3.2.2 Technical StandardsEthical Purpose and Societal Benefit > Overarching principles
2.1.3 Policies & ProceduresEthical Purpose and Societal Benefit > Work and automation
2.2.1 Risk AssessmentEthical Purpose and Societal Benefit > Environmental impact
2.2.1 Risk AssessmentEthical Purpose and Societal Benefit > Weaponised AI
3.1.3 International AgreementsEthical Purpose and Societal Benefit > The weaponisation of false or misleading information
1.2.1 Guardrails & FilteringOther (outside lifecycle)
Outside the standard AI system lifecycle
Governance Actor
Regulator, standards body, or oversight entity shaping AI policy
Measure
Quantifying, testing, and monitoring identified AI risks
