Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Necessity of AI Audit Standards Boards

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 2404.13060 v1 pith:CNS4AMYI submitted 2024-04-11 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords auditingstandardsethicalsystemsauditfieldsgovernanceindustries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Auditing of AI systems is a promising way to understand and manage ethical problems and societal risks associated with contemporary AI systems, as well as some anticipated future risks. Efforts to develop standards for auditing Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have therefore understandably gained momentum. However, we argue that creating auditing standards is not just insufficient, but actively harmful by proliferating unheeded and inconsistent standards, especially in light of the rapid evolution and ethical and safety challenges of AI. Instead, the paper proposes the establishment of an AI Audit Standards Board, responsible for developing and updating auditing methods and standards in line with the evolving nature of AI technologies. Such a body would ensure that auditing practices remain relevant, robust, and responsive to the rapid advancements in AI. The paper argues that such a governance structure would also be helpful for maintaining public trust in AI and for promoting a culture of safety and ethical responsibility within the AI industry. Throughout the paper, we draw parallels with other industries, including safety-critical industries like aviation and nuclear energy, as well as more prosaic ones such as financial accounting and pharmaceuticals. AI auditing should emulate those fields, and extend beyond technical assessments to include ethical considerations and stakeholder engagement, but we explain that this is not enough; emulating other fields' governance mechanisms for these processes, and for audit standards creation, is a necessity. We also emphasize the importance of auditing the entire development process of AI systems, not just the final products...

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Standardizing Intelligence: Aligning Generative AI for Regulatory and Operational Compliance

    cs.CY 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper proposes C3F, a two-axis framework rating GenAI compliance capability and standard criticality, and applies it to 15 models and 34 standards.

  2. AI Governance through Markets

    econ.GN 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Market governance mechanisms, supported by standardized AI disclosures, can create financial incentives for responsible AI development, according to this policy paper.

Pith tools