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.
Unclassifiable mitigations.
4.1 Governments are encouraged to consider whether existing legal frameworks such as product liability require adjustment in light of the unique characteristics of AI systems. 4.2 Governments should support and participate in international co-ordination (through bodies such as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)) to develop international standards for the development and deployment of safe and reliable AI systems.
Reasoning
Governments participate in international coordination (ISO/IEC) to develop shared technical standards for AI system safety and reliability.
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
Govern
Policies, processes, and accountability structures for AI risk management
