Implications of Regulations on the Use of AI and Generative AI for Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the upcoming AI regulations (e.g., EU AI Act) and rapid advancements in generative AI, new challenges emerge in the area of Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence (HCR-AI). As AI becomes more ubiquitous, questions around decision-making authority, human oversight, accountability, sustainability, and the ethical and legal responsibilities of AI and their creators become paramount. Addressing these questions requires a collaborative approach. By involving stakeholders from various disciplines in the 2nd edition of the HCR-AI Special Interest Group (SIG) at CHI 2024, we aim to discuss the implications of regulations in HCI research, develop new theories, evaluation frameworks, and methods to navigate the complex nature of AI ethics, steering AI development in a direction that is beneficial and sustainable for all of humanity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.153 | 0.259 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".