Who Is Responsible When AI-Generated Answers Go Wrong?

(Scroll to bottom for ChatGPT-generated summary)

The six US tech companies with over $1 trillion market cap (nVidia, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, and Meta) have one thing in common among members: artificial intelligence (AI). More and more companies, large ones as well as on-fire startups, want the world to believe that you can ask their tools any question, and they will somehow deliver a good answer. This is partly true already, and the answers are likely to be more accurate as they improve their platforms over time. Today they claim they’re not responsible for answer accuracy through their warnings and encouragement to “check important information”. Indeed, as we go along, the only questions will be how accurate are AI-delivered answers and ultimately, who will be accountable for wrong or “bad” answers? Who is responsible for model alignment and output? Is it the LLM engineer, the content owners, the platforms which publish them, or someone else?

These questions are particularly salient as AI systems increasingly pervade the healthcare, finance, and legal services sectors. Understanding responsibility in AI-generated information requires a multidisciplinary approach incorporating legal, ethical, and technical perspectives, which can vary based on institutional societal and cultural context. It is truly a moving target without a well established regulatory framework.?

Additionally, the landscape of AI transparency is evolving and companies have varied approaches to openness. The Foundation Model Transparency Index by Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Group shows the industry average is 58%, which indicates a need for more transparency in the field. 15 major AI firms made a commitment to the White House’s transparency pledge and that’s a good step forward, but more progress will open the road forward to a better understanding of where accountability lies.?

The Complex Ecosystem of AI Accountability

AI systems do not operate in a vacuum. They are developed, deployed, and used within a complex ecosystem involving multiple stakeholders, including developers, deployers, end-users, and regulators. Each of these actors plays a role in the functioning of AI systems and thus has a potential stake in the responsibility for AI errors.

Developers and Manufacturers

Developers play a pivotal role in the AI lifecycle, designing the algorithms, training the models, and testing the systems. Developers may bear responsibility if an AI system produces harmful or misleading outputs due to a flaw in its design or training. For instance, developers could be held accountable for not vetting data or checking biased programming if a predictive healthcare model produces incorrect or outdated treatment recommendations.?

Bias in data sets and Ai algorithms is an inherent trait that cannot be completely eradicated in both human cognition and AI. In AI systems, algorithms can only be as unbiased as the data they're trained on, and since all data is a product of human society, it's laced with our conscious and unconscious preferences. This bias, whether in data sets or human judgment, has direction and magnitude that must be acknowledged and managed. Understanding and minimizing these biases and aligning them with the end users values is crucial for creating AI systems that are fair and equitable.

Organizations Deploying AI

The entities that deploy AI systems are also key players. These organizations are responsible for integrating AI into their operations and ensuring it is used appropriately. If an AI system is misapplied or used in a context for which it was not designed, the deploying organization may be held liable. For example, if a financial institution uses an AI model for credit scoring and produces discriminatory results, it could be held accountable for not correctly auditing the model's performance and fairness. Most of the larger LLM developers have written their terms and conditions very purposefully to limit their responsibility and instead the deploying organization assumes (in most cases) all liability.?

End-Users

While end-users typically lack expertise to understand AI's intricacies, they are the ones responsible for utilizing AI outputs. If an AI system provides a recommendation and the user blindly follows it without exercising due diligence or contextual judgment, they may share the responsibility. Generative AI companies utilize End-User License Agreements (EULAs) to outline the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities associated with their products.

These agreements typically include provisions that disclaim or assign ownership of AI-generated content to the user. They also clarify that the outputs generated by the AI may not be unique and may not be protected under intellectual property laws. Additionally, EULAs often state that the AI provider is not responsible for reviewing the accuracy of inputs or for any potential liabilities that may arise from their use.

Let’s take AI patient education, for example. AI systems can generate more friction and doubt in a patient's healthcare journey by giving conflicting recommendations. The end-user/patient in this scenario may not have the information to discern between a right or wrong recommendation and ultimately the provider organization deploying the technology shares in the responsibility of delivering accuracy. This is why healthcare providers often opt for a controlled-AI experience.

Regulators and Policy Makers

Regulators play a critical role in setting standards and frameworks for AI usage. They ensure that AI systems adhere to safety, privacy, and fairness guidelines. When AI-generated answers go wrong, it may indicate a failure in regulatory oversight, suggesting a need for more stringent guidelines or enforcement mechanisms.

The rapid pace of technological innovation often outstrips the development of regulatory frameworks, leading to a “regulatory gap” that can result in harm before appropriate regulations are implemented.?

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

The responsibility gap is often discussed in the ethical and legal frameworks of AI, as well. This gap arises when it is unclear who should be held accountable for the actions of an autonomous system. As AI systems become more complex and autonomous, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint where responsibility lies. This underscores the need for ethical frameworks that promote transparency, accountability, and the responsible development and use of AI technologies.

The legal landscape for AI accountability is still emerging, with various jurisdictions adopting different approaches to liability. Traditional liability frameworks, such as product or professional liability, may only sometimes be sufficient to address the unique challenges AI poses. There are ongoing debates about the need for new laws specifically tailored to AI to clarify the responsibilities and liabilities of different stakeholders.

It is essential to carefully consider and review information before inputting it into Generative AI systems to prevent unintentional breaches of confidentiality, data privacy, security laws, and the potential loss of intellectual property, including trade secrets.

Technical Considerations

From a technical perspective, the explainability and transparency of AI systems are crucial for assigning responsibility. AI systems, particularly those based on deep learning, are often criticized for being "black boxes," where the decision-making process is opaque. Improving the interpretability of AI systems can help identify the root causes of errors and assign responsibility more effectively.

Shared Responsibility and Human-In-The-Loop

Addressing the question of responsibility for AI-generated errors requires a paradigm shift towards shared responsibility. By embracing a shared responsibility model, we can create a safer and more equitable future where AI benefits society while minimizing the risks of harm from erroneous outputs.

A crucial component of this shared responsibility is the integration of human-in-the-loop (HITL) systems. Developers must design AI systems with HITL mechanisms that allow for human review and intervention at critical points. Regulators should mandate HITL approaches to create a standard of human oversight, especially with high-stakes AI systems. Organizations that deploy AI need services that balance between automation and human oversight to ensure their clients are getting reliable and context-dependent information.?

Finally, end-users must be trained to understand that AI systems are meant to enhance, not replace, their decision-making and exercise due diligence in interpreting AI-generated outputs. By promoting HITL frameworks, we create a feedback loop to AI systems that makes them safer and more accurate with each new iteration. It also allows for revision as legal and ethical concerns are better understood.??

Integrating human-in-the-loop processes within the AI lifecycle fosters a collaborative environment where technology and human expertise work together, ensuring that AI serves humanity responsibly and ethically. Solutions that promote a human-in-the-loop validation model - aren’t just imperative; they’re possible. Here are five products that do it today across different sectors: 1. Automobiles—Self-driving cars are a prime example of the human-in-the-loop approach. Cars follow a prescribed route and stop when necessary, but the remote or in person driver can take over for course correction or emergency situations.?

2. Content Moderation—Social media firms like Facebook use AI to flag harmful content, but human moderators make the final call on what is allowed and whether the user should be warned, suspended, or banned altogether.

3. Engagement/Education - HIA Technologies uses Author-controlled AITM to allow content creators to communicate with their audiences using their specific knowledge. When users ask the AI questions, they get the information from the Author’s source content, not the whole of the internet. It’s up to the HIA as an organization, it’s developers, and the author-doctors to make sure the software has up-to-date and accurate information that the end-users, the patients, can make choices with.?

4. Medicine - Google’s Deepmind and Moorfields Hospital in the UK are researching how the Deepmind technology can enhance accuracy and efficiency in the >5,000 optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans the hospital performs each week. While the system can aid doctors, the physicians still have the final say in diagnosis and have to execute the treatment themselves.?

5. Finance - AlphaSense is a Goldman-Sachs backed platform that uses an AI-powered search engine to deliver investment research to analysts. It can summarize sentiments of large documents and help analysts comb through seas of SEC filings, earning transcripts, and more. The analysts are the end users who have to use due diligence on the findings AlphaSense provides for them.?

Conclusion

Human accountability is key in AI development, and we will likely see better, more accurate, and more reliable results as we develop better standards of accountability. It’s not just up to the developers of AI systems, but all of the players from government regulators to end users. The best version of AI will be achieved when all of these players develop comprehensive human-in-the-loop approaches to AI. After all, it’s a tool to be used by us, not replace us.?

_________________________________________________________________________________

CHATGPT SUMMARY

We asked ChatGPT to summarize our article. We also asked it to generate a concept-image of itself summarizing our article. Here are the results:

Who Is Responsible When AI-Generated Answers Go Wrong?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a central component of the top tech companies, yet the question of responsibility for AI-generated errors remains unresolved. As AI systems are increasingly deployed in critical sectors like healthcare, finance, and legal services, understanding who is accountable when these systems produce wrong or harmful outcomes is crucial.

Key Points of Responsibility:

1. Developers and Manufacturers: Developers may be held accountable if an AI system's errors stem from flaws in design, data training, or programming biases. Bias, inherent in both human cognition and AI, needs careful management to ensure fair and equitable outcomes.

2. Organizations Deploying AI: Companies using AI must ensure it is appropriately integrated and used. Liability may fall on these organizations, especially if the AI is misapplied, leading to discriminatory or harmful outcomes.

3. End-Users: Those who use AI outputs, such as patients or financial analysts, also bear some responsibility. Their actions based on AI recommendations require due diligence and contextual judgment.

4. Regulators and Policy Makers: Regulatory bodies set standards for AI usage, but often lag behind technological innovation, creating a "regulatory gap" that can lead to unaddressed harm.

The Complex Ecosystem of AI Accountability:

AI operates within a network of stakeholders, each bearing potential responsibility. However, assigning accountability is complicated due to the opaque nature of AI decision-making processes and the lack of clear regulatory frameworks.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions:

The "responsibility gap" arises when it's unclear who should be held accountable for AI actions. Current legal frameworks may be insufficient, and there is an ongoing debate about whether new laws tailored to AI are necessary.

Technical Considerations:

Improving AI transparency and explainability is vital for effective responsibility assignment. Incorporating human-in-the-loop (HITL) processes, where human oversight is part of AI decision-making, can help mitigate risks and enhance accountability.

Shared Responsibility and Human-In-The-Loop:

A shift towards shared responsibility among all stakeholders, including developers, deployers, and end-users, is necessary for safer AI use. HITL frameworks are highlighted as a means to ensure AI systems are supervised and corrected by humans, enhancing safety and accuracy.

Conclusion:

Human accountability is essential in AI development and use. A collaborative effort among developers, regulators, organizations, and end-users is needed to create reliable and ethically sound AI systems that serve humanity without replacing it.