In policy debates concerning the governance and regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), both the Precautionary Principle (PP) and the Innovation Principle (IP) are advocated by their respective interest groups. Do these principles offer wholly incompatible and contradictory guidance? Does one necessarily negate the other? I argue here that provided attention is restricted to weak-form PP and IP, the answer to both of these questions is "No." The essence of these weak formulations is the requirement to fully account for type-I error costs arising from erroneously preventing the innovation's diffusion through society (i.e. mistaken regulatory red-lighting) as well as the type-II error costs arising from erroneously allowing the innovation to diffuse through society (i.e. mistaken regulatory green-lighting). Within the Signal Detection Theory (SDT) model developed here, weak-PP red-light (weak-IP green-light) determinations are optimal for sufficiently small (large) ratios of expected type-I to type-II error costs. For intermediate expected cost ratios, an amber-light 'wait-and-monitor' policy is optimal. Regulatory sandbox instruments allow AI testing and experimentation to take place within a structured environment of limited duration and societal scale, whereby the expected cost ratio falls within the 'wait-and-monitor' range. Through sandboxing regulators and innovating firms learn more about the expected cost ratio, and what respective adaptations -- of regulation, of technical solution, of business model, or combination thereof, if any -- are needed to keep the ratio out of the weak-PP red-light zone. Nevertheless AI foundation models are ill-suited for regulatory sandboxing as their general-purpose nature precludes credible identification of misclassification costs.

UnScientify, a system designed to detect scientific uncertainty in scholarly full text. The system utilizes a weakly supervised technique to identify verbally expressed uncertainty in scientific texts and their authorial references. The core methodology of UnScientify is based on a multi-faceted pipeline that integrates span pattern matching, complex sentence analysis and author reference checking. This approach streamlines the labeling and annotation processes essential for identifying scientific uncertainty, covering a variety of uncertainty expression types to support diverse applications including information retrieval, text mining and scientific document processing. The evaluation results highlight the trade-offs between modern large language models (LLMs) and the UnScientify system. UnScientify, which employs more traditional techniques, achieved superior performance in the scientific uncertainty detection task, attaining an accuracy score of 0.808. This finding underscores the continued relevance and efficiency of UnScientify's simple rule-based and pattern matching strategy for this specific application. The results demonstrate that in scenarios where resource efficiency, interpretability, and domain-specific adaptability are critical, traditional methods can still offer significant advantages.

This demo paper presents UnScientify, an interactive system designed to detect scientific uncertainty in scholarly full text. The system utilizes a weakly supervised technique that employs a fine-grained annotation scheme to identify verbally formulated uncertainty at the sentence level in scientific texts. The pipeline for the system includes a combination of pattern matching, complex sentence checking, and authorial reference checking. Our approach automates labeling and annotation tasks for scientific uncertainty identification, taking into account different types of scientific uncertainty, that can serve various applications such as information retrieval, text mining, and scholarly document processing. Additionally, UnScientify provides interpretable results, aiding in the comprehension of identified instances of scientific uncertainty in text.