Incident/controversy assessment and approval
The following criteria are used to assess, approve, and update entries to the AIAAIC Repository.
Relevance: Entries must be driven by or relating to AI, algorithms, and automation (per the above definitions). The repository does not cover super-intelligence, singularity, and related meta controversies.
Nature: Sometimes the novelty of a third-party attack, blatant disregard for ethics or lack of openness about an incident speaks for itself and leads to an incident being added to the AIAAIC Repository. On the other hand, an incident may not be added if the facts remain unclear or the impacts (see below) are seen to be minimal.
Impact(s): An incident or controversy must have resulted – or be seen to have resulted – in clear harm or damage to its users, society, and the environment (ie. external impacts), and/or to the governance of the organisation designing, developing, deploying, or monitoring the relevant system (ie. internal impacts).
The harm or damage caused by an incident may range from critical to very low to positive (bearing in mind that an incident or controversy can have a positive impact on revenue); impact one or more audiences and have been directly driven by or indirectly connected with the system.
Individual: Physical, material, and non-material; limitation of civil rights and freedoms, including discrimination and privacy; identity theft and fraud; financial loss; loss of confidentiality; reputational damage.
Societal: Economic, social, and political systems and stability; societal (transport, energy, etc) and business infrastructure; local community wellbeing and cohesion.
Environmental: Air quality; emissions; energy management; water and wastewater management; waste and hazardous materials management; ecological impacts.
Strategic/reputational: Where the incident or controversy negatively impacts the organisation’s business model; impairs its ability to innovate; calls into question its mission or purpose; contravenes its business values and ethics; or where it results in backlashes or boycotts (including campaigns and petitions) by users, customers, employees, politicians, and other stakeholders, and/or in the resignation or termination of senior leaders or team members.
Operational: Where the incident or controversy results in the system being reviewed, strengthened, investigated, suspended, recalled, or terminated. Also covers labour practices; employment; employee engagement, diversity and inclusion; incident, crisis and risk management.
Financial: Where the incident or controversy negatively impacts revenue, margin, market share, stock/share price, or insurance liability.
Legal/regulatory: Where the incident or controversy results in legal, legislative, or regulatory complaints, threats, investigations, warnings, fines, disputes, or litigation.
Trustworthiness: An incident or controversy is likely to have been covered by media sources rated as credible and trustworthy by NewsGuard, JTI, and/or an equivalent news rating organisation or programme. Commentary and analysis by relevant, credible and authoritative opinion-formers (aka ‘influencers’) is also considered.
Volume: The more an incident or controversy is covered by the media and opinion-formers, notably the international and business media, and mentioned in social media, the more likely it is to be added to the AIAAIC Repository. However, this is not always the case: some incidents draw little attention but have a severe or critical impact on the system under scrutiny.
Fairness and accuracy: Each incident and/or controversy is assessed objectively on the publicly available data, facts and by commentary and analysis by credible and trustworthy media sources and opinion-formers (see above). Links are publicly provided to original research, legal documents, company statements, and to a selected range of high-quality media coverage.