analiza aiqbench
This arXiv paper analyzes the split between AI safety and AI ethics research, which it calls the "responsible AI divide." It proposes four ways the two fields can engage (confrontation, disengagement, coexistence, and critical bridging) and maps 3,555 papers from each area. The paper finds real thematic differences, with ethics focused on present-day harms and safety on anticipated capability risks, but also substantial overlap on transparency, reproducibility, and governance. Readers tracking how safety and governance priorities get set should note that the empirical mapping is the most concrete contribution, while the case for "critical bridging" remains a normative argument.
Bridging the Gap in the Responsible AI Divides
arXiv:2603.14495v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tensions between AI Safety (AIS) and AI Ethics (AIE) have created what we term a "responsible AI divide." This divide has been persistent, and has dominated the public and policy discourse on AI, and increasingly shapes how governments, firms, and researchers define responsible AI, and so which AI risks they prioritize, which they sideline, and which mitigation strategies they ultimately develop and implement. Here, we first introduce categorization with four major conceptual modes of possible engagement with these tensions: radical confrontation, disengagement, compartmentalized coexistence, and critical bridging. Second, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the modes of engagement. Third, we empirically analyze a well-curated set of 3555 research papers roughly representing AIS and AIE. Using computational tools and qualitative analyses, we map the research landscapes of AIE and AIS. We observe that there are several shared research problems between AIE and AIS. However, there are also several thematic divides. For example, we find that AIE has long grappled with problems related to injustice incurred by AI and tangible AI harms, whereas AIS has primarily embodied an anticipatory approach focused on mitigating risks from AI capabilities. At the same time, we find significant overlap in core research concerns across AIE and AIS regarding transparency, reproducibility, and inadequate governance mechanisms. Based on our empirical observations, we claim that critical bridging, with a focus on bridging problems, offers one viable, constructive path for advancing responsible AI. We conclude by identifying bridging problems as a foundation for collaborative AI governance, offering concrete recommendations for integrating shared considerations into responsible AI practice, discussing the limitations of critical bridging, and outlining open problems for future research.
Abstract:Tensions between AI Safety (AIS) and AI Ethics (AIE) have created what we term a "responsible AI divide." This divide has been persistent, and has dominated the public and policy discourse on AI, and increasingly shapes how governments, firms, and researchers define responsible AI, and so which AI risks they prioritize, which they sideline, and which mitigation strategies they ultimately develop and implement. Here, we first introduce categorization with four major conceptual modes of possible engagement with these tensions: radical confrontation, disengagement, compartmentalized coexistence, and critical bridging. Second, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the modes of engagement. Third, we empirically analyze a well-curated set of 3555 research papers roughly representing AIS and AIE. Using computational tools and qualitative analyses, we map the research landscapes of AIE and AIS. We observe that there are several shared research problems between AIE and AIS. However, there are also several thematic divides. For example, we find that AIE has long grappled with problems related to injustice incurred by AI and tangible AI harms, whereas AIS has primarily embodied an anticipatory approach focused on mitigating risks from AI capabilities. At the same time, we find significant overlap in core research concerns across AIE and AIS regarding transparency, reproducibility, and inadequate governance mechanisms. Based on our empirical observations, we claim that critical bridging, with a focus on bridging problems, offers one viable, constructive path for advancing responsible AI. We conclude by identifying bridging problems as a foundation for collaborative AI governance, offering concrete recommendations for integrating shared considerations into responsible AI practice, discussing the limitations of critical bridging, and outlining open problems for future research.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2603.14495 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2603.14495v2 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.14495 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 367 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Concerns and Strategic Responses of Older Workers Navigating Generative AI in Bridge Employment
arXiv · 9 iun. 2026

Tokenize text across vLLM and Watsonx
LiteLLM Blog · 23 oct. 2026
A Vehicle-Integrated Approach to Digital Twin Deployment for Bridges Through Drive-By Sensing
arXiv · 8 oct. 2026
Doubly Robust Proxy Causal Learning with Neural Mean Embeddings
arXiv · 14 oct. 2026