Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Defining AI in Policy versus Practice (1912.11095v1)

Published 23 Dec 2019 in cs.CY, cs.AI, cs.LG, and physics.soc-ph

Abstract: Recent concern about harms of information technologies motivate consideration of regulatory action to forestall or constrain certain developments in the field of AI. However, definitional ambiguity hampers the possibility of conversation about this urgent topic of public concern. Legal and regulatory interventions require agreed-upon definitions, but consensus around a definition of AI has been elusive, especially in policy conversations. With an eye towards practical working definitions and a broader understanding of positions on these issues, we survey experts and review published policy documents to examine researcher and policy-maker conceptions of AI. We find that while AI researchers favor definitions of AI that emphasize technical functionality, policy-makers instead use definitions that compare systems to human thinking and behavior. We point out that definitions adhering closely to the functionality of AI systems are more inclusive of technologies in use today, whereas definitions that emphasize human-like capabilities are most applicable to hypothetical future technologies. As a result of this gap, ethical and regulatory efforts may overemphasize concern about future technologies at the expense of pressing issues with existing deployed technologies.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. P. M. Krafft (6 papers)
  2. Meg Young (5 papers)
  3. Michael Katell (13 papers)
  4. Karen Huang (2 papers)
  5. Ghislain Bugingo (1 paper)
Citations (78)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com