The paper describes an approach to automated dynamic operational alignment in a complex high-risk process, exemplified by a case study on autonomous drilling, and possible sources of AI misalignments are discussed.
Abstract
AI alignment is generally associated with ethics and social aspects. For high-risk AI systems, principles such as safety, stability and performance are crucial for their adoption in real-world application, to build trust and increase efficiency of a process. By safety it is meant both safety of the system itself but also safety of the process and environment. Any decision taken by a high-risk AI system should preserve safety, ensure continuous operation, real-time functioning, smooth control, and improve process efficiency. Human oversight needs to be continuously ensured, both to preserve safety of the process in case of transition from autonomous to manual mode in case of failures, but also to allow for contextual knowledge of the decisions. All these objectives are included in the AI operational alignment. High-risk AI systems designed to automatize complex processes in critical environments are continuously adapting to dynamic contexts, thus a static alignment might not be sufficient to properly assess their behaviour. The paper describes an approach to automated dynamic operational alignment in a complex high-risk process, exemplified by a case study on autonomous drilling. Possible sources of AI misalignments in this case are discussed and their potential implications.
This case illustrates how human oversight can be engineered into employee-facing AI systems while preserving operational autonomy in real-world deployments.
It is demonstrated how poorly integrated automation can create hidden system fragility, while systems designed with clear human authority exhibit greater resilience and workforce engagement, in high-reliability environments.
The ethical issues surrounding the development and deployment of AI are becoming very critical as these technologies evolve and affect more facets of society. To make AI systems more beneficial and reduce their potential negative impact on public life, international communities, as well as local and global organization...
L. Abodinar· IEEE International Requireme...· 0 citations
It is asserted that trustworthiness is a systems property, not a single algorithmic feature, and that realising it requires coordinated advances in explainability, uncertainty quantification, human–AI interaction design, failure detection, and domain-specific data governance.
ADAE is introduced, a proposed AI engineering subdiscipline concerned with establishing measurable, continuous, and actionable accountability for deployed AI systems and treats accountability as a deployment-layer property rather than solely as a property of an individual model.
A real-world AI evaluation framework focused on AI-in-use: how people actually appropriate, adapt, and work around AI systems in context, and what consequences follow over time is proposed.
Reva Schwartz, Gabriella Waters· Social science computer revi...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.