The case for a broader approach to AI assurance

Addressing “hidden” harms in the development of artificial intelligence

Bibliographic Data

ID20398136
AuthorsChristopher Thomas (0000-0002-0346-2417), Christopher E Thomas (0000-0001-8817-4977, Turing Institute), Huw Roberts (0000-0002-9610-7245, University of Oxford, corresponding author), Jakob Mökander (0000-0002-8691-2582, Yale University), Andreas Tsamados (University of Oxford), Mariarosaria Taddeo (0000-0002-1181-649X, Turing Institute), Luciano Floridi (0000-0002-5444-2280, Yale University)
Year2025
Volume40
Issue3
Pages1469-1484
Publication date2025-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAI & Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0951-5666 • E-ISSN: 1435-5655
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s00146-024-01950-y
OpenAlexW4396969651
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited58

Artificial intelligence (AI) assurance is an umbrella term describing many approaches—such as impact assessment, audit, and certification procedures—used to provide evidence that an AI system is legal, ethical, and technically robust. AI assurance approaches largely focus on two overlapping categories of harms: deployment harms that emerge at, or after, the point of use, and individual harms that directly impact a person as an individual. Current approaches generally overlook upstream collective and societal harms associated with the development of systems, such as resource extraction and processing, exploitative labour practices and energy intensive model training. Thus, the scope of current AI assurance practice is insufficient for ensuring that AI is ethical in a holistic sense, i.e. in ways that are legally permissible, socially acceptable, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. This article addresses this shortcoming by arguing for a broader approach to AI assurance that is sensitive to the full scope of AI development and deployment harms. To do so, the article maps harms related to AI and highlights three examples of harmful practices that occur upstream in the AI supply chain and impact the environment, labour, and data exploitation. It then reviews assurance mechanisms used in adjacent industries to mitigate similar harms, evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and how effectively they are being applied to AI. Finally, it provides recommendations as to how a broader approach to AI assurance can be implemented to mitigate harms more effectively across the whole AI supply chain

Cognitive science · Computer Science · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · Occupational Health and Safety Research · Psychology · Risk Perception and Management · Artificial Intelligence

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access