A dual clinical-computational taxonomy for medical LLM reasoning plus a five-level 5k-sample benchmark showing specialists excel at diagnosis and general models at decision support/dialogue.
Assessing AI Impact Assessments: A Classroom Study
2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Artificial Intelligence Impact Assessments ("AIIAs"), a family of tools that provide structured processes to imagine the possible impacts of a proposed AI system, have become an increasingly popular proposal to govern AI systems. Recent efforts from government or private-sector organizations have proposed many diverse instantiations of AIIAs, which take a variety of forms ranging from open-ended questionnaires to graded score-cards. However, to date that has been limited evaluation of existing AIIA instruments. We conduct a classroom study (N = 38) at a large research-intensive university (R1) in an elective course focused on the societal and ethical implications of AI. We assign students to different organizational roles (for example, an ML scientist or product manager) and ask participant teams to complete one of three existing AI impact assessments for one of two imagined generative AI systems. In our thematic analysis of participants' responses to pre- and post-activity questionnaires, we find preliminary evidence that impact assessments can influence participants' perceptions of the potential risks of generative AI systems, and the level of responsibility held by AI experts in addressing potential harm. We also discover a consistent set of limitations shared by several existing AIIA instruments, which we group into concerns about their format and content, as well as the feasibility and effectiveness of the activity in foreseeing and mitigating potential harms. Drawing on the findings of this study, we provide recommendations for future work on developing and validating AIIAs.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.AI 2years
2026 2roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
Analysis of Canada's Federal AI Register reveals it frames AI as reliable internal tooling by obscuring sociotechnical elements like human discretion, turning transparency into performative compliance.
citing papers explorer
-
Aligning Clinical Needs and AI Capabilities: A Survey on LLMs for Medical Reasoning
A dual clinical-computational taxonomy for medical LLM reasoning plus a five-level 5k-sample benchmark showing specialists excel at diagnosis and general models at decision support/dialogue.
-
Bureaucratic Silences: What the Canadian AI Register Reveals, Omits, and Obscures
Analysis of Canada's Federal AI Register reveals it frames AI as reliable internal tooling by obscuring sociotechnical elements like human discretion, turning transparency into performative compliance.