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.
Red teaming, capability evaluations, adversarial testing, and performance verification.
Also in Risk & Assurance
3.1 Governments should require and organisations should test AI systems thoroughly to ensure that they reliably adhere, in operation, to the underpinning ethical and moral principles and have been trained with data which are curated and are as ‘error-free’ as practicable, given the circumstances. 3.2 Governments are encouraged to adjust regulatory regimes and/or promote industry self-regulatory regimes for allowing market-entry of AI systems in order to reasonably reflect the positive exposure that may result from the public operation of such AI systems. Special regimes for intermediary and limited admissions to enable testing and refining of the operation of the AI system can help to expedite the completion of the AI system and improve its safety and reliability. 3.3 In order to ensure and maintain public trust in final human control, governments should consider implementing rules that ensure comprehensive and transparent investigation of such adverse and unanticipated outcomes of AI systems that have occurred through their usage, in particular if these outcomes have lethal or injurious consequences for the humans using such systems. Such investigations should be used for considering adjusting the regulatory framework for AI systems in particular to develop a more rounded understanding of how such systems should gracefully handover to their human operators.
Reasoning
Mitigation spans multiple L1/L2 categories: organizational testing (2.2.2), government regulation (3.1.1), self-regulatory mechanisms (3.3.3), and investigation procedures. Primary focal activity insufficient for confident L3 classification.
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 & FilteringVerify and Validate
Testing, evaluating, auditing, and red-teaming the AI system
Governance Actor
Regulator, standards body, or oversight entity shaping AI policy
Measure
Quantifying, testing, and monitoring identified AI risks
Primary
7 AI System Safety, Failures & Limitations