Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Indexing AI Risks with Incidents, Issues, and Variants

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 2211.10384 v1 pith:XRJK7RJI submitted 2022-11-18 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

Indexing AI Risks with Incidents, Issues, and Variants

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG
keywords harmincidentincidentsissuesaiidcriteriadatabaseevent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Two years after publicly launching the AI Incident Database (AIID) as a collection of harms or near harms produced by AI in the world, a backlog of "issues" that do not meet its incident ingestion criteria have accumulated in its review queue. Despite not passing the database's current criteria for incidents, these issues advance human understanding of where AI presents the potential for harm. Similar to databases in aviation and computer security, the AIID proposes to adopt a two-tiered system for indexing AI incidents (i.e., a harm or near harm event) and issues (i.e., a risk of a harm event). Further, as some machine learning-based systems will sometimes produce a large number of incidents, the notion of an incident "variant" is introduced. These proposed changes mark the transition of the AIID to a new version in response to lessons learned from editing 2,000+ incident reports and additional reports that fall under the new category of "issue."

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.