Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Operationalizing the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights: Recommendations for Practitioners, Researchers, and Policy Makers

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

arxiv 2407.08689 v1 pith:BZ7HHZ4E submitted 2024-07-11 cs.AI cs.CYcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CYcs.LG
keywords regulatoryoperationalizingpractitionersblueprintframeworksresearchtoolsbeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly employed in diverse real-world applications, there has been significant interest in regulating these tools. To this end, several regulatory frameworks have been introduced by different countries worldwide. For example, the European Union recently passed the AI Act, the White House issued an Executive Order on safe, secure, and trustworthy AI, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (AI BoR). Many of these frameworks emphasize the need for auditing and improving the trustworthiness of AI tools, underscoring the importance of safety, privacy, explainability, fairness, and human fallback options. Although these regulatory frameworks highlight the necessity of enforcement, practitioners often lack detailed guidance on implementing them. Furthermore, the extensive research on operationalizing each of these aspects is frequently buried in technical papers that are difficult for practitioners to parse. In this write-up, we address this shortcoming by providing an accessible overview of existing literature related to operationalizing regulatory principles. We provide easy-to-understand summaries of state-of-the-art literature and highlight various gaps that exist between regulatory guidelines and existing AI research, including the trade-offs that emerge during operationalization. We hope that this work not only serves as a starting point for practitioners interested in learning more about operationalizing the regulatory guidelines outlined in the Blueprint for an AI BoR but also provides researchers with a list of critical open problems and gaps between regulations and state-of-the-art AI research. Finally, we note that this is a working paper and we invite feedback in line with the purpose of this document as described in the introduction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Unified Attribution in Explainable AI, Data-Centric AI, and Mechanistic Interpretability

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A position paper unifying feature, data, and component attribution under three shared techniques, perturbation, gradient, and linear approximation, and proposing cross-attribution research directions.

Pith tools