The release of ChatGPT, Bard, and other large language model (LLM)-based chatbots has drawn huge attention on foundations models (FMs) worldwide. FMs are massive artificial intelligence (AI) models that are pre-trained on vast amounts of broad data and can be adapted to perform a wide variety of tasks [1]. With numerous projects already underway to explore their potential, it is widely predicted that FMs will serve as the fundamental building blocks for most future AI and artificial generative intelligence (AGI) systems. Many reusable solutions have been proposed to tackle various challenges in designing FM-based systems. However, there is a lack of systematic guidance on the architecture design of FM-based systems. The impact of integrating FMs into software architecture are not fully studied yet. Additionally, the FM's growing capabilities can eventually absorb the other components of AI systems, introducing the moving boundary and interface evolution challenges in architecture design. On the other hand, there are unique challenges on building responsible AI into the architecture of FM-based systems. First, accountability becomes more complex due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely recognised as transformative artificial generative intelligence (AGI) technologies due to their capabilities to understand and generate content, including plans with reasoning capabilities. Foundation model based agents derive their autonomy from the capabilities of foundation models, which enable them to autonomously break down a given goal into a set of manageable tasks and orchestrate task execution to meet the goal. Despite the huge efforts put into building foundation model based autonomous agents, the architecture design of the agents has not yet been systematically explored. Also, while there are significant benefits of using autonomous agents for planning and execution, there are serious considerations regarding responsible AI related software quality attributes, such as security and accountability. Therefore, this paper presents a pattern-oriented reference architecture that serves as architecture design guidance and enables responsible-AI-by-design when designing foundation model based autonomous agents. We evaluate the completeness and utility of the proposed reference architecture by mapping it to the architecture of two real-world agents.

Responsible AI is widely considered as one of the greatest scientific challenges of our time and is key to increase the adoption of AI. Recently, a number of AI ethics principles frameworks have been published. However, without further guidance on best practices, practitioners are left with nothing much beyond truisms. Also, significant efforts have been placed at algorithm-level rather than system-level, mainly focusing on a subset of mathematics-amenable ethical principles, such as fairness. Nevertheless, ethical issues can arise at any step of the development lifecycle, cutting across many AI and non-AI components of systems beyond AI algorithms and models. To operationalize responsible AI from a system perspective, in this paper, we present a Responsible AI Pattern Catalogue based on the results of a Multivocal Literature Review (MLR). Rather than staying at the principle or algorithm level, we focus on patterns that AI system stakeholders can undertake in practice to ensure that the developed AI systems are responsible throughout the entire governance and engineering lifecycle. The Responsible AI Pattern Catalogue classifies the patterns into three groups: multi-level governance patterns, trustworthy process patterns, and responsible-AI-by-design product patterns. These patterns provide systematic and actionable guidance for stakeholders to implement responsible AI.

The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) was first established as the result of the ruling of Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v AEPD, Mario Costeja Gonz\'alez, and was later included as the Right to Erasure under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of European Union to allow individuals the right to request personal data be deleted by organizations. Specifically for search engines, individuals can send requests to organizations to exclude their information from the query results. It was a significant emergent right as the result of the evolution of technology. With the recent development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their use in chatbots, LLM-enabled software systems have become popular. But they are not excluded from the RTBF. Compared with the indexing approach used by search engines, LLMs store, and process information in a completely different way. This poses new challenges for compliance with the RTBF. In this paper, we explore these challenges and provide our insights on how to implement technical solutions for the RTBF, including the use of differential privacy, machine unlearning, model editing, and prompt engineering. With the rapid advancement of AI and the increasing need of regulating this powerful technology, learning from the case of RTBF can provide valuable lessons for technical practitioners, legal experts, organizations, and authorities.

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), the quest to understand and model data-generating processes (DGPs) is of paramount importance. Deep generative models (DGMs) have proven adept in capturing complex data distributions but often fall short in generalization and interpretability. On the other hand, causality offers a structured lens to comprehend the mechanisms driving data generation and highlights the causal-effect dynamics inherent in these processes. While causality excels in interpretability and the ability to extrapolate, it grapples with intricacies of high-dimensional spaces. Recognizing the synergistic potential, we delve into the confluence of causality and DGMs. We elucidate the integration of causal principles within DGMs, investigate causal identification using DGMs, and navigate an emerging research frontier of causality in large-scale generative models, particularly generative large language models (LLMs). We offer insights into methodologies, highlight open challenges, and suggest future directions, positioning our comprehensive review as an essential guide in this swiftly emerging and evolving area.

Language tests measure a person's ability to use a language in terms of listening, speaking, reading, or writing. Such tests play an integral role in academic, professional, and immigration domains, with entities such as educational institutions, professional accreditation bodies, and governments using them to assess candidate language proficiency. Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the discipline of Natural Language Processing have prompted language test providers to explore AI's potential applicability within language testing, leading to transformative activity patterns surrounding language instruction and learning. However, with concerns over AI's trustworthiness, it is imperative to understand the implications of integrating AI into language testing. This knowledge will enable stakeholders to make well-informed decisions, thus safeguarding community well-being and testing integrity. To understand the concerns and effects of AI usage in language tests, we conducted interviews and surveys with English test-takers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study aimed at identifying the implications of AI adoption in language tests from a test-taker perspective. Our study reveals test-taker perceptions and behavioral patterns. Specifically, we identify that AI integration may enhance perceptions of fairness, consistency, and availability. Conversely, it might incite mistrust regarding reliability and interactivity aspects, subsequently influencing the behaviors and well-being of test-takers. These insights provide a better understanding of potential societal implications and assist stakeholders in making informed decisions concerning AI usage in language testing.

The recent release of large language model (LLM) based chatbots, such as ChatGPT, has attracted significant attention on foundation models. It is widely believed that foundation models will serve as the fundamental building blocks for future AI systems. As foundation models are in their early stages, the design of foundation model based systems has not yet been systematically explored. There is little understanding about the impact of introducing foundation models in software architecture. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a taxonomy of foundation model based systems, which classifies and compares the characteristics of foundation models and design options of foundation model based systems. Our taxonomy comprises three categories: foundation model pretraining and fine-tuning, architecture design of foundation model based systems, and responsible-AI-by-design. This taxonomy provides concrete guidance for making major design decisions when designing foundation model based systems and highlights trade-offs arising from design decisions.

Distributed trust is a nebulous concept that has evolved from different perspectives in recent years. While one can attribute its current prominence to blockchain and cryptocurrency, the distributed trust concept has been cultivating progress in federated learning, trustworthy and responsible AI in an ecosystem setting, data sharing, privacy issues across organizational boundaries, and zero trust cybersecurity. This paper will survey the concept of distributed trust in multiple disciplines. It will take a system/software architecture point of view to look at trust redistribution/shift and the associated tradeoffs in systems and applications enabled by distributed trust technologies.

ChatGPT has gained huge attention and discussion worldwide, with responsible AI being a crucial topic of discussion. One key question is how we can ensure that AI systems, like ChatGPT, are developed and adopted in a responsible way? Responsible AI is the practice of developing, deploying, and maintaining AI systems in a way that benefits the humans, society, and environment, while minimising the risk of negative consequences. To solve the challenge of responsible AI, many AI ethics principles have been released recently by governments, organisations, and enterprises [1]. A principle-based approach provides technology-neutral and context-independent guidance while allowing contextspecific interpretations for implementing responsible AI. However, those principles are too abstract and high-level for practitioners to use in practice. For example, it is a very challenging and complex task to operationalise the the human-centered value principle regarding how it can be designed for, implemented and monitored throughout the entire lifecycle of AI systems. In addition, the existing work mainly focuses on algorithm-level solutions for a subset of mathematics-amenable AI ethics principles (such as privacy and fairness). However, responsible AI issues can happen at any stage of the development lifecycle crosscutting various AI and non-AI components of systems beyond AI algorithms and models.

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) is motivated by the desire of people not to be perpetually disadvantaged by their past deeds. For this, data deletion needs to be deep and permanent, and should be removed from machine learning models. Researchers have proposed machine unlearning algorithms which aim to erase specific data from trained models more efficiently. However, these methods modify how data is fed into the model and how training is done, which may subsequently compromise AI ethics from the fairness perspective. To help software engineers make responsible decisions when adopting these unlearning methods, we present the first study on machine unlearning methods to reveal their fairness implications. We designed and conducted experiments on two typical machine unlearning methods (SISA and AmnesiacML) along with a retraining method (ORTR) as baseline using three fairness datasets under three different deletion strategies. Experimental results show that under non-uniform data deletion, SISA leads to better fairness compared with ORTR and AmnesiacML, while initial training and uniform data deletion do not necessarily affect the fairness of all three methods. These findings have exposed an important research problem in software engineering, and can help practitioners better understand the potential trade-offs on fairness when considering solutions for RTBF.