Trustworthy AI: AI developers’ lens to implementation challenges and opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As organizations continue to embrace the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, it is crucial to ensure that these AI systems can be trusted. However, there is still a significant gap between research on trustworthy AI and its implementation in real-world applications. To address this issue, we sought to explore the perspectives of AI developers and the challenges they face in creating trustworthy AI systems. This exploratory study involved conducting interviews with 19 AI developers. We identified key challenges faced by AI developers due to the immature state of trustworthy AI, inconsistent global regulatory landscape, a lack of standardized definitions of key concepts, limited tools and standards for practical implementation in organizations. This paper provides recommendations for organizations to invest in trustworthy AI processes and practices, this includes building a foundation for trustworthy AI specific to their organization, adopting an organizational approach to trustworthy AI culture, and providing proper data infrastructures to support AI developers in creating trustworthy AI systems. By investing in trustworthy AI practices, organizations can prepare for evolving regulations and ensure that their AI systems are reliable and trustworthy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it