Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Artificial Intelligence Policy Framework for Institutions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A five-question flowchart routes every AI element to safeguards, approval, or rejection.

desk verdict A well-meaning checklist that contradicts itself in its own case studies; not a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02834 v1 pith:LAM6CRP4 submitted 2024-12-03 cs.CY

William Franz Lamberti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords artificialintelligencegenerativeAIpolicyinstitutionseducationnationalsecurityexplainabilityinterpretability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that an institution's AI policy can be reduced to a practical flowchart: for each AI element, ask whether it involves personal data or secrets, whether it affects protected groups, whether it is interpretable and explainable, whether it consumes high energy, and whether a wrong output would have severe consequences. The answers route the element to a terminal node of 'Proceed,' to a demand for safeguards, or to rejection. The claim is that this single chart can serve as a baseline policy for universities, hospitals, and government agencies without requiring deep AI expertise. The paper supports the chart with seven case studies, from video-game water graphics to a military email, and adds a classroom variant that blocks AI when it would defeat a learning goal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decision flow chart in Figure 1, a five-question binary tree in which an 'element' is any essential part of a product or solution that uses AI. Its ordering encodes a priority: privacy first, then fairness, then transparency for any element touching protected parties, then sustainability, then consequence severity. If an element involves PII or secrets, the institution applies safeguards and then continues down the chart as though the answer were 'no,' following the dotted line. The terminal nodes are labeled 'Proceed,' and the chart itself is the mechanism that converts ethical principles into an operational decision. Figure 2 extends the same machinery to classrooms by inserting an extra question: does using this element defeat the learning objective?

What would settle it

Run the paper's Section IV-D case through Figure 1 literally: the model is a deep neural network that is neither interpretable nor explainable and severely misclassifies patients over 75, a protected group, so the protected-party branch requires stopping. The paper instead concludes the model should be published. If one case in the paper can defensibly terminate at both 'do not proceed' and 'proceed,' the flowchart does not by itself determine the decision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the major ethical worries about AI—privacy, bias, opacity, energy use, and risk—can be compressed into one ordered decision procedure. The flowchart in Figure 1 begins by asking whether an AI element uses personally identifiable information or secrets; if it does, the institution must add encryption, access controls, anonymization, or removal before continuing. It then asks whether protected parties are affected, and if they are, the element must have high interpretability and explainability so that biases can be identified and corrected. Only after those checks does the chart ask about energy and about the severity of incorrect predictions, ending at 'Proceed.' The seven case studies are offered as evidence that the procedure resolves cleanly, with the only additional institutional twist being a classroom-specific check on whether using the AI defeats the purpose of the assignment.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that an institution's staff can answer each yes-or-no question in the flowchart the same way, even though the paper does not define what counts as a protected party, high interpretability, high energy, or severe consequences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An institution can use Figure 1 as an intake test for any AI purchase, with each element ending at 'Proceed,' 'apply safeguards,' or 'do not proceed.'
  • A high-accuracy but opaque model that affects a protected group fails the transparency branch and should not be deployed, no matter how well it performs.
  • High-energy generative AI is still permitted when the privacy and fairness checks pass and errors are not severe, because energy is considered only after those branches.
  • Academic institutions get an extra lever: a tool that is ethically permissible in general can still be banned in a classroom if it undercuts the skill being taught.
  • Interpretability is treated not as a general virtue but as a conditional requirement: it becomes mandatory precisely when protected parties are involved.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to replace the binary questions with measurement thresholds, such as a maximum allowed accuracy gap between protected and unprotected groups or a cost per inference above which energy counts as high, making the flowchart auditable.
  • Because the paper's own case studies require judgment calls, such as whether severe misclassification of patients over 75 counts as affecting a protected party, the flowchart is best read as a discussion scaffold; an inter-rater test on the seven cases would show where it needs calibration.
  • The classroom variant suggests a general design pattern: any institution can insert its own purpose check ahead of the generic ethics questions, turning the framework into a family of customizable flowcharts rather than a single universal policy.
  • The framework's completeness could be tested by searching for an AI element that passes all five questions yet still causes harm, for example a highly interpretable, low-energy model with no protected-party impact that enables large-scale manipulation, which would point to a missing question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decision-making framework, presented as a flowchart (Figure 1), to help institutions determine whether an AI element should be deployed, based on sequential questions about PII or secrets, protected parties, interpretability and explainability, energy consumption, and the severity of incorrect predictions. Seven hypothetical case studies illustrate how the flowchart would be applied in contexts such as video game graphics, honor-code enforcement, medical diagnosis, academic publication, military email, and classroom calculator use. The paper's central claim is that the framework provides a 'baseline and practical AI policy framework for institutions' that ensures ethical and responsible AI use.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and timely need: many institutions lack concrete guidance on how to weigh privacy, fairness, transparency, sustainability, and risk when adopting AI. The attempt to condense these dimensions into a single generalized flowchart is a useful conceptual contribution, and the case studies cover a broad range of institutional contexts. The paper is also readable and self-contained. However, the claimed practicality and ethical calibration of the framework are not supported by the evidence provided: the case studies are hypothetical and the flowchart contains internal inconsistencies that would prevent a user from reaching a determinate decision. If the inconsistencies were resolved and the framework operationalized with clear thresholds, the approach could be a starting point for institutional policy discussions, but in its current form the central claim fails.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Figure 1 and Case Study IV-D] The flowchart's protected-party branch requires high levels of interpretability and explainability, yet Case Study IV-D describes a deep NN that is 'not interpretable nor explainable' and that 'severely misclassified patients over the age of 75', an affected protected group. Despite this, the case study concludes that the model should be published in a top journal. No exception for research or publication appears in Figure 1 or in the textual description of the decision points. An institution following the framework would be forced to both reject the use (because protected parties are affected and the model is a black box) and approve it (because the author's stated purpose is scientific advancement), with no priority rule to resolve the conflict. This internal inconsistency directly undermines the claim that the framework is a practical and usable decision procedure.
  2. [Section IV, Steps 4 and 5] The thresholds for 'high energy' and 'severe consequences' are never defined. The flowchart asks a user to decide whether the AI application is 'computationally intensive' and whether consequences are 'severe', but no operational criteria are given. The case studies themselves show the problem: in IV-D, training a deep NN for medical diagnosis is deemed 'not a concern' for energy, while in IV-A the authors assume an 'acceptable level' of glitchiness without defining it. Without clear thresholds, two users who agree on the facts could reach different terminal nodes, so the framework cannot be considered determinate. This is a load-bearing gap because the framework's entire purpose is to guide decisions.
  3. [Section IV, Case Study IV-G] Case Study IV-G also conflicts with Step 3 of the framework. The case study explicitly acknowledges that protected parties could be the subject of a student's paper (e.g., Japanese internees in World War II) and that the generative AI 'does not have high levels of interpretability and explainability'. Yet the instructor proceeds with allowing the AI because students are expected to take responsibility for their submissions. This is another instance where the author applies an implicit exception (student oversight) that is not present in the flowchart. The pattern across IV-D and IV-G shows that the case studies are authored to fit desired outcomes rather than to test the framework, which undermines their evidentiary value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A] There are several typographical errors, including 'interpertability' and 'explainablity' in the text; these should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV] The abbreviation 'GiA' is used throughout, but it is not defined at first use in the body; it appears only in the abstract as 'generative AI (GiA)' and later in the introduction. Also, 'safegaurds' and 'elemement' in the description of step 1 are typos.
  3. [Section II-B] The definition of AI as 'an operation that performed by a computer that could be performed by a human' is extremely broad and would include any software executing a hand-computable algorithm. This may be intentional, but it should be justified because it affects which elements the framework applies to.
  4. [References] Reference [23] is an unpublished overview by the author, and reference [12] is a non-archival blog post. These are not ideal sources for defining core concepts like explainability and interpretability, which have established literature that is already cited (e.g., [22]).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is a decision flowchart, not a derivation, and the single self-citation supplies standard definitions that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper does not present a derivation chain with equations or fitted parameters. Its central claim is to provide a baseline and practical AI policy framework, operationalized as the flowchart in Figure 1. The framework's decision rules (PII/secret inclusion, protected parties, interpretability, energy, consequences) are stated as policy judgments, not derived from data or from the paper's own prior results. The only self-citation is reference [23], used to define explainability and interpretability. Those definitions are standard in the XAI literature and are also supported by reference [22]; the framework's usefulness does not reduce to the authority of the self-citation. The case studies are explicitly described as hypothetical illustrations intended to navigate Figure 1, so they are not independent tests of the framework. This weakens the evidence for the framework's practicality but does not make the framework circular. No prediction is fitted and then renamed as independent, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The internal inconsistency noted in Case Study IV-D (protected-party rule requiring interpretability while the black-box model is published) is a correctness or consistency concern, not a circularity one. Overall, the paper is self-contained as a policy proposal and exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no mathematical parameters or hypothetical entities. It relies on several domain assumptions about how AI should be defined and how ethical evaluation works. The most load-bearing assumption is that the flowchart's vague, qualitative criteria can be applied consistently to yield ethical outcomes, which the case studies themselves call into question.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All computers are equipped with some kind of AI capabilities.
    Used in Section II-B to support including calculators as AI elements; an unsupported and unusually broad claim.
  • domain assumption AI is an operation performed by a computer that could be performed by a human.
    Defined in Section II-B; this broad definition underpins the classification of ordinary software as AI and shapes the framework's scope.
  • ad hoc to paper Elements affecting protected parties require high levels of interpretability and explainability.
    Stated as a normative rule in Section IV, point 3; the paper offers no independent justification beyond trust-building, and its case studies do not consistently apply it.
  • ad hoc to paper Following the decision flowchart ensures ethical and responsible use of AI.
    The central implicit assumption of the framework. No empirical evidence or formal argument is provided to show that the flowchart's binary questions capture all relevant ethical considerations or that its recommendations are correct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Artificial Intelligence Policy Framework for Institutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAM6CRP4

@misc{pith2026241202834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Artificial Intelligence Policy Framework for Institutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAM6CRP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02834}
}
read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various sectors and institutions, including education and healthcare. Although AI offers immense potential for innovation and problem solving, its integration also raises significant ethical concerns, such as privacy and bias. This paper delves into key considerations for developing AI policies within institutions. We explore the importance of interpretability and explainability in AI elements, as well as the need to mitigate biases and ensure privacy. Additionally, we discuss the environmental impact of AI and the importance of energy-efficient practices. The culmination of these important components is centralized in a generalized framework to be utilized for institutions developing their AI policy. By addressing these critical factors, institutions can harness the power of AI while safeguarding ethical principles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General AI policy for institutions. understandable. Interpretable and explainable elements can help identify and mitigate biases, ensuring fair and equitable outcomes. 4. Energy Considerations: If the AI application is computa￾tionally intensive, such as large-scale generative AI models, it is important to consider the energy implications. High energy consumption can contribute to environmental impact and increased … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Altered AI policy for classroom settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Pilot Study on Generative AI and Critical Thinking in Higher Education Classrooms

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A short video lesson on evaluating generative AI output was associated with a statistically significant but fragile improvement in one course's AI-critique assignment, in a small non-randomized pilot.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    An Overview of Explainable and Interpretable Artificial Intelligence,

    W. F. Lamberti, “An Overview of Explainable and Interpretable Artificial Intelligence,” 2022

    2022

  2. [1]

    Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy,

    A. D. Thierer, A. Castillo O’Sullivan, and R. Russell, “Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy,” Rochester, NY , Aug. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3021135

    2017

  3. [2]

    Human Rights and Artificial Intelligence: A Universal Challenge,

    V . Greiman, “Human Rights and Artificial Intelligence: A Universal Challenge,” Journal of Information Warfare , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 50–62, 2021, publisher: Peregrine Technical Solutions. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27036518

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    A Framework for Ethical AI at the United Nations

    L. Hogenhout, “A Framework for Ethical AI at the United Nations,” Apr. 2021, arXiv:2104.12547. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2104.12547

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Introduction to the special issue on AI systems for the public interest,

    T. Z ¨uger and H. Asghari, “Introduction to the special issue on AI systems for the public interest,” Internet Policy Review , vol. 13, no. 3, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://policyreview.info/articles/ analysis/introduction-special-issue-ai-systems-public-interest

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Balancing public interest, fundamental rights, and innovation: The EU’s governance model for non-high-risk AI systems,

    M. Gille, M. Tropmann-Frick, and T. Schomacker, “Balancing public interest, fundamental rights, and innovation: The EU’s governance model for non-high-risk AI systems,” Internet Policy Review , vol. 13, no. 3, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://policyreview.info/articles/ analysis/balancing-public-interest-fundamental-rights-and-innovation

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Balancing efficiency and public interest: The impact of AI automation on social benefit provision in Brazil,

    M. A. Nicol ´as and R. C. Sampaio, “Balancing efficiency and public interest: The impact of AI automation on social benefit provision in Brazil,” Internet Policy Review , vol. 13, no. 3, Sep

    work page

  8. [7]

    Beware the Lure of Narratives: “Hungry Judges

    K. Chatziathanasiou, “Beware the Lure of Narratives: “Hungry Judges” Should Not Motivate the Use of “Artificial Intelligence” in Law,” German Law Journal , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 452–464, May 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated Decision Systems,

    F. Gursoy and I. A. Kakadiaris, “Equal Confusion Fairness: Measuring Group-Based Disparities in Automated Decision Systems,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) , Nov. 2022, pp. 137–146, iSSN: 2375-9259. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplor...

    2022

  2. [9]

    Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap Articles & Essays,

    R. Calo, “Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap Articles & Essays,” University of Bologna Law Review , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 180–218, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h= hein.journals/bologna3&i=189

    2018

  3. [10]

    Privacy and personal data risk governance for generative artificial intelligence: A Chinese perspective,

    X. Ye, Y . Yan, J. Li, and B. Jiang, “Privacy and personal data risk governance for generative artificial intelligence: A Chinese perspective,” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 48, no. 10, p. 102851, Nov. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

    2024

  4. [11]

    Cyber Security Issues and Challenges Related to Generative AI and ChatGPT,

    R. Pasupuleti, R. Vadapalli, and C. Mader, “Cyber Security Issues and Challenges Related to Generative AI and ChatGPT,” in 2023 Tenth International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS), Nov. 2023, pp. 1–5, iSSN: 2831-7343. [Online]. Available...

    2023

  5. [12]

    More Than 25% of Google’s New Code Is Generated by AI—Is It True? | by Jim Clyde Monge | Nov, 2024 | Generative AI,

    Monge, Jim Clyde, “More Than 25% of Google’s New Code Is Generated by AI—Is It True? | by Jim Clyde Monge | Nov, 2024 | Generative AI,” Nov. 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    AI Adoption in America: Who, What, and Where,

    K. McElheran, J. F. Li, E. Brynjolfsson, Z. Kroff, E. Dinlersoz, L. S. Foster, and N. Zolas, “AI Adoption in America: Who, What, and Where,” Oct. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.nber.org/papers/ w31788

    2023

  7. [14]

    Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024,

    N. Maslej, L. Fattorini, R. Perrault, V . Parli, A. Reuel, E. Brynjolfsson, J. Etchemendy, K. Ligett, T. Lyons, J. Manyika, J. C. Niebles, Y . Shoham, R. Wald, and J. Clark, “Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2024,” May 2024, arXiv:2405.19522. [Online]. Available: http://ar...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    A Review of Artificial Intelligence in Government and its Potential from a Public Policy Perspective,

    D. Valle-Cruz, E. Alejandro Ruvalcaba-Gomez, R. Sandoval-Almazan, and J. Ignacio Criado, “A Review of Artificial Intelligence in Government and its Potential from a Public Policy Perspective,” in Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Res...

    2019

  9. [16]

    Education for AI, not AI for Education: The Role of Education and Ethics in National AI Policy Strategies,

    D. Schiff, “Education for AI, not AI for Education: The Role of Education and Ethics in National AI Policy Strategies,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 527–563, Sep. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40593-...

    2022

  10. [17]

    A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning,

    C. K. Y . Chan, “A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , vol. 20, no. 1, p. 38, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3

    2023 doi

  11. [18]

    Global Public Opinion on Artificial Intelligence (GPO-AI),

    P. J. Loewen, B. Lee-Whiting, Arai, T. Bergeron, T. Galipeau, I. Gazendam, H. Needham, L. Slinger, and S. Yusypovych, “Global Public Opinion on Artificial Intelligence (GPO-AI),” Tech. Rep., 2024. [Online]. Available: https://srinstitute.utoronto.ca/public-opinion-ai

    2024

  12. [19]

    DiffusionDB: A Large-scale Prompt Gallery Dataset for Text-to-Image Generative Models,

    Z. J. Wang, E. Montoya, D. Munechika, H. Yang, B. Hoover, and D. H. Chau, “DiffusionDB: A Large-scale Prompt Gallery Dataset for Text-to-Image Generative Models,” Jul. 2023, arXiv:2210.14896 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14896

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    ImageReward: Learning and Evaluating Human Preferences for Text-to-Image Generation,

    J. Xu, X. Liu, Y . Wu, Y . Tong, Q. Li, M. Ding, J. Tang, and Y . Dong, “ImageReward: Learning and Evaluating Human Preferences for Text-to-Image Generation,” Dec. 2023, arXiv:2304.05977 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05977

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?

    A. S. Luccioni, Y . Jernite, and E. Strubell, “Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?” Oct. 2024, arXiv:2311.16863. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16863

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI,

    A. Barredo Arrieta, N. D ´ıaz-Rodr´ıguez, J. Del Ser, A. Bennetot, S. Tabik, A. Barbado, S. Garcia, S. Gil-Lopez, D. Molina, R. Benjamins, R. Chatila, and F. Herrera, “Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsi...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Thomas a,

    T. A. Edison, “Thomas a,” US Patent US307 031A, Oct., 1884. [Online]. Available: https://patents.google.com/patent/US307031A/en? oq=thomas+edison+us307031a

  17. [25]

    Electro-magnetic motor,

    N. Tesla, “Electro-magnetic motor,” US Patent US381 968A, May, 1888. [Online]. Available: https://patents.google.com/patent/US381968A/en

  18. [26]

    Jonnes, Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World , 1st ed

    J. Jonnes, Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World , 1st ed. New York: Random House Publishing Group, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position,

    K. Fukushima, “Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position,” Biological Cybernetics , vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 193–202, Apr. 1980. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF00344251

    1980 doi

  20. [28]

    The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain,

    F. Rosenblatt, “The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain,” Psychological Review, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 386–408, 1958, place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

    1958

  21. [29]

    Spartan Books, 1962, google-Books-ID: 7FhRAAAA- MAAJ

    ——, Principles of Neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the Theory of Brain Mechanisms. Spartan Books, 1962, google-Books-ID: 7FhRAAAA- MAAJ

    1962

  22. [30]

    Efficient Classification of White Blood Cell Leukemia with Improved Swarm Optimization of Deep Features,

    A. T. Sahlol, P. Kollmannsberger, and A. A. Ewees, “Efficient Classification of White Blood Cell Leukemia with Improved Swarm Optimization of Deep Features,” Scientific Reports, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2536, Feb. 2020, number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Availab...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Mendenhall and T

    W. Mendenhall and T. T. Sincich, A Second Course in Statistics: Regression Analysis, 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson, Jan. 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Generative Artificial Intelligence: The Protection of Personal Data and Countering False Narratives about the Person,

    W. B. Chik, “Generative Artificial Intelligence: The Protection of Personal Data and Countering False Narratives about the Person,” Singapore Academy of Law Journal , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 307– 345, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein. journals/saclj36&i=320

    2024

  25. [33]

    Policy Modeling and Applications: State-of-the-Art and Per- spectives,

    B. A. Furtado, M. A. Fuentes, and C. J. Tessone, “Policy Modeling and Applications: State-of-the-Art and Per- spectives,” Complexity, vol. 2019, no. 1, p. 5041681, 2019, eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1155/2019/5041681. [Online]. Available: https://onlineli...

    2019 doi

  26. [2024]

    Available: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/ balancing-efficiency-and-public-interest-ai

    [Online]. Available: https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/ balancing-efficiency-and-public-interest-ai

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.