REVIEW 10 cited by
A Collaborative, Human-Centred Taxonomy of AI, Algorithmic, and Automation Harms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
This paper introduces a collaborative, human-centred taxonomy of AI, algorithmic and automation harms. We argue that existing taxonomies, while valuable, can be narrow, unclear, typically cater to practitioners and government, and often overlook the needs of the wider public. Drawing on existing taxonomies and a large repository of documented incidents, we propose a taxonomy that is clear and understandable to a broad set of audiences, as well as being flexible, extensible, and interoperable. Through iterative refinement with topic experts and crowdsourced annotation testing, we propose a taxonomy that can serve as a powerful tool for civil society organisations, educators, policymakers, product teams and the general public. By fostering a greater understanding of the real-world harms of AI and related technologies, we aim to increase understanding, empower NGOs and individuals to identify and report violations, inform policy discussions, and encourage responsible technology development and deployment.
Forward citations
Cited by 10 Pith papers
-
Human-Guided Harm Recovery for Computer Use Agents
Introduces harm recovery as a post-execution safeguard for computer-use agents, operationalized via a human-preference rubric, reward model, and BackBench benchmark that shows improved recovery trajectories.
-
"Death by a thousand taxonomies?": AI Risk Classification In Practice
Based on 25 interviews, AI risk taxonomies are poorly integrated into governance because their design choices are invisible to users and they rarely link harms to responsible actors.
-
What's Privacy Good for? Measuring Privacy as a Shield from Harms due to Personal Data Use
A survey of 400 students shows that 14 perceived privacy harms form a single reliable scale that varies by data type and context.
-
FAIRTOPIA: Envisioning Multi-Agent Guardianship for Disrupting Unfair AI Pipelines
FAIRTOPIA proposes a three-layer, multi-agent architecture for continuous AI fairness guardianship, but offers only a conceptual design and no validation.
-
Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom?
A critical review of 121 federated learning fairness papers identifies five recurring pitfalls and proposes a harm-centered, lifecycle-based framework.
-
The safety failures we are not instrumenting: a perspective on hidden safety-critical challenges in modern AI systems
AI safety should be measured by whether deployed systems keep errors visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable across five integrity layers, not only by whether individual model outputs look safe.
-
Developing a Risk Identification Framework for Foundation Model Uses
The paper derives four design requirements for use-based foundation model risk identification and presents an initial questionnaire-based framework demonstrated on a visitor-center chatbot example.
-
Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects
A position paper argues that understanding AI's second-order effects requires moving from static benchmarks to an ecosystem of field testing, red teaming, and contextual evaluation.
-
LLM Harms: A Taxonomy and Discussion
This paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM harms in five categories and suggests mitigation strategies plus a dynamic auditing system for responsible development.
-
AI Harmonics: a human-centric and harms severity-adaptive AI risk assessment framework
AI Harmonics measures how unevenly AI harm severity ranks are distributed across stakeholder groups, producing rankings that reduce to the existing Criticality Index.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.