Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Hard Choices in Artificial Intelligence

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 2106.11022 v1 pith:T3MWFHPP submitted 2021-06-10 cs.CY cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

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

As AI systems are integrated into high stakes social domains, researchers now examine how to design and operate them in a safe and ethical manner. However, the criteria for identifying and diagnosing safety risks in complex social contexts remain unclear and contested. In this paper, we examine the vagueness in debates about the safety and ethical behavior of AI systems. We show how this vagueness cannot be resolved through mathematical formalism alone, instead requiring deliberation about the politics of development as well as the context of deployment. Drawing from a new sociotechnical lexicon, we redefine vagueness in terms of distinct design challenges at key stages in AI system development. The resulting framework of Hard Choices in Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) empowers developers by 1) identifying points of overlap between design decisions and major sociotechnical challenges; 2) motivating the creation of stakeholder feedback channels so that safety issues can be exhaustively addressed. As such, HCAI contributes to a timely debate about the status of AI development in democratic societies, arguing that deliberation should be the goal of AI Safety, not just the procedure by which it is ensured.

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. Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools