IBM's Global Leader on Responsible AI and AI Governance, Francesca Rossi, arrived at her current area of focus after a 2014 sabbatical at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute, which inspired her to think beyond her training as an academic researcher and incorporate both humanistic and technological perspectives into the development of AI systems. In the intervening years, she helped build IBM's internal AI Ethics Board and foster external partnerships to shape best practices for responsible AI. Here, we talk about trust, governance, and what these issues have to do with AI decision making. The ethical issues around the use of AI evolved with the technology's capabilities. Traditional machine learning approaches introduced issues like fairness, explainability, privacy, transparency, and so on.

Concept-based explainable artificial intelligence (C-XAI) can let people see which representations an AI model has learned. This is particularly important when high-level semantic information (e.g., actions and relations) is used to make decisions about abstract categories (e.g., danger). In such tasks, AI models need to generalise beyond situation-specific details, and this ability can be reflected in C-XAI outputs that randomise over irrelevant features. However, it is unclear whether people appreciate such generalisation and can distinguish it from other, less desirable forms of imprecision in C-XAI outputs. Therefore, the present study investigated how the generality and relevance of C-XAI outputs affect people's evaluation of AI. In an experimental railway safety evaluation scenario, participants rated the performance of a simulated AI that classified traffic scenes involving people as dangerous or not. These classification decisions were explained via concepts in the form of similar image snippets. The latter differed in their match with the classified image, either regarding a highly relevant feature (i.e., people's relation to tracks) or a less relevant feature (i.e., people's action). Contrary to the hypotheses, concepts that generalised over less relevant features were rated lower than concepts that matched the classified image precisely. Moreover, their ratings were no better than those for systematic misrepresentations of the less relevant feature. Conversely, participants were highly sensitive to imprecisions in relevant features. These findings cast doubts on the assumption that people can easily infer from C-XAI outputs whether AI models have gained a deeper understanding of complex situations.

An ever increasing number of high-stake decisions are made or assisted by automated systems employing brittle artificial intelligence technology. There is a substantial risk that some of these decision induce harm to people, by infringing their well-being or their fundamental human rights. The state-of-the-art in AI systems makes little effort with respect to appropriate documentation of the decision process. This obstructs the ability to trace what went into a decision, which in turn is a prerequisite to any attempt of reconstructing a responsibility chain. Specifically, such traceability is linked to a documentation that will stand up in court when determining the cause of some AI-based decision that inadvertently or intentionally violates the law. This paper takes a radical, yet practical, approach to this problem, by enforcing the documentation of each and every component that goes into the training or inference of an automated decision. As such, it presents the first running workflow supporting the generation of tamper-proof, verifiable and exhaustive traces of AI decisions. In doing so, we expand the Decision Bill of Material (DBOM) concept (Wenzel et al. 2024) into an effective running workflow leveraging confidential computing technology. We demonstrate the inner workings of the workflow in the development of an app to tell poisonous and edible mushrooms apart, meant as a playful example of high-stake decision support.

Judgment of risk is key to decision-making under uncertainty. As Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky famously discovered, humans do so in a distinctive way that departs from mathematical rationalism. Specifically, they demonstrated experimentally that humans accept more risk when they feel themselves at risk of losing something than when they might gain. I report the first tests of Kahneman and Tversky's landmark 'prospect theory' with Large Language Models, including today's state of the art chain-of-thought 'reasoners'. In common with humans, I find that prospect theory often anticipates how these models approach risky decisions across a range of scenarios. I also demonstrate that context is key to explaining much of the variance in risk appetite. The 'frame' through which risk is apprehended appears to be embedded within the language of the scenarios tackled by the models. Specifically, I find that military scenarios generate far larger 'framing effects' than do civilian settings, ceteris paribus. My research suggests, therefore, that language models the world, capturing our human heuristics and biases. But also that these biases are uneven - the idea of a 'frame' is richer than simple gains and losses. Wittgenstein's notion of 'language games' explains the contingent, localised biases activated by these scenarios. Finally, I use my findings to reframe the ongoing debate about reasoning and memorisation in LLMs.

Artificial intelligence - driven adaptive learning systems are reshaping education through data - driven adaptation of learning experiences. Yet many of these systems lack transparency, offering limited insight into how decisions are made. Most explainable AI (XAI) techniques focus on technical outputs but neglect user roles and comprehension. This paper proposes a hybrid framework that integrates traditional XAI techniques with generative AI models and u ser personalisation to generate multimodal, personalised explanations tailored to user needs. We redefine explainability as a dynamic communication process tailored to user roles and learning goals. We outline the framework ' s design, key XAI limitations in education, and research directions on accuracy, fairness, and personalisation. Our aim is to move towards explainable AI that enhances transparency while supporting user - centred experiences.

Many countries are exploring how artificial intelligence might help with everything from processing taxes to determining welfare benefits. But a survey shows citizens are not as enthusiastic as their governments – and this can create real risks for democracy. "Focusing only on short-term efficiency gains and shiny technology risks triggering public backlash and contributing to a long-term decline in democratic trust and legitimacy," says Alexander Wuttke at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. Wuttke and his colleagues asked around 1200 people in the UK to share their feelings about government actions where either a human or an AI handled the task. These hypothetical scenarios included processing tax returns, approving or rejecting welfare applications and making risk assessments about whether defendants should be eligible for bail. Some people were only told about how AI could improve government efficiency – but others learned about both AI-related benefits and risks.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly complex and autonomous, concerns over transparency and accountability have intensified. The "black box" problem in AI decision-making limits stakeholders' ability to understand, trust, and verify outcomes, particularly in high-stakes sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems. Blockchain technology, with its decentralized, immutable, and transparent characteristics, presents a potential solution to enhance AI transparency and auditability. This paper explores the integration of blockchain with AI to improve decision traceability, data provenance, and model accountability. By leveraging blockchain as an immutable record-keeping system, AI decision-making can become more interpretable, fostering trust among users and regulatory compliance. However, challenges such as scalability, integration complexity, and computational overhead must be addressed to fully realize this synergy. This study discusses existing research, proposes a framework for blockchain-enhanced AI transparency, and highlights practical applications, benefits, and limitations. The findings suggest that blockchain could be a foundational technology for ensuring AI systems remain accountable, ethical, and aligned with regulatory standards.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is essential for building advanced machine learning-powered applications, especially in critical domains such as medical diagnostics or autonomous driving. Legal, business, and ethical requirements motivate using effective XAI, but the increasing number of different methods makes it challenging to pick the right ones. Further, as explanations are highly context-dependent, measuring the effectiveness of XAI methods without users can only reveal a limited amount of information, excluding human factors such as the ability to understand it. We propose to evaluate XAI methods via the user's ability to successfully perform a proxy task, designed such that a good performance is an indicator for the explanation to provide helpful information. In other words, we address the helpfulness of XAI for human decision-making. Further, a user study on state-of-the-art methods was conducted, showing differences in their ability to generate trust and skepticism and the ability to judge the rightfulness of an AI decision correctly. Based on the results, we highly recommend using and extending this approach for more objective-based human-centered user studies to measure XAI performance in an end-to-end fashion.

We are increasingly subjected to the power of AI authorities. As AI decisions become inescapable, entering domains such as healthcare, education, and law, we must confront a vital question: how can we ensure AI systems have the legitimacy necessary for effective governance? This essay argues that to secure AI legitimacy, we need methods that engage the public in designing and constraining AI systems, ensuring these technologies reflect the community's shared values. Constitutional AI, proposed by Anthropic, represents a step towards this goal, offering a model for democratic control of AI. However, while Constitutional AI's commitment to hardcoding explicit principles into AI models enhances transparency and accountability, it falls short in two crucial aspects: addressing the opacity of individual AI decisions and fostering genuine democratic legitimacy. To overcome these limitations, this essay proposes "Public Constitutional AI." This approach envisions a participatory process where diverse stakeholders, including ordinary citizens, deliberate on the principles guiding AI development. The resulting "AI Constitution" would carry the legitimacy of popular authorship, grounding AI governance in the public will. Furthermore, the essay proposes "AI Courts" to develop "AI case law," providing concrete examples for operationalizing constitutional principles in AI training. This evolving combination of constitutional principles and case law aims to make AI governance more responsive to public values. By grounding AI governance in deliberative democratic processes, Public Constitutional AI offers a path to imbue automated authorities with genuine democratic legitimacy, addressing the unique challenges posed by increasingly powerful AI systems while ensuring their alignment with the public interest.

Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media / Better Images of AI / Data is a Mirror of Us / Licenced by CC-BY 4.0 Humans are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decisions about our lives. AI is, for instance, helping to make hiring choices and offer medical diagnoses. If you were affected, you might want an explanation of why an AI system produced the decision it did. Yet AI systems are often so computationally complex that not even their designers fully know how the decisions were produced. That's why the development of "explainable AI" (or XAI) is booming.