dc.contributor.author | Sætra, Henrik Skaug | |
dc.contributor.author | Danaher, John | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-13T09:04:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-13T09:04:47Z | |
dc.date.created | 2023-09-04T15:23:52Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
dc.identifier.citation | AI and Ethics. 2023. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2730-5953 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3122066 | |
dc.description.abstract | AI poses both short- and long-term risks, but the AI ethics and regulatory communities are struggling to agree on how to think two thoughts at the same time. While disagreements over the exact probabilities and impacts of risks will remain, fostering a more productive dialogue will be important. This entails, for example, distinguishing between evaluations of particular risks and the politics of risk. Without proper discussions of AI risk, it will be difcult to properly manage them, and we could end up in a situation where neither short- nor long-term risks are managed and mitigated. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Springer | en_US |
dc.rights | Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no | * |
dc.subject | AI | en_US |
dc.subject | existential risk | en_US |
dc.subject | risk management | en_US |
dc.subject | risk analysis | en_US |
dc.subject | risk assessment | en_US |
dc.title | Resolving the battle of short- vs. long-term AI risks | en_US |
dc.type | Peer reviewed | en_US |
dc.type | Journal article | en_US |
dc.description.version | publishedVersion | en_US |
dc.rights.holder | © The Author(s) 2023 | en_US |
dc.subject.nsi | VDP::Teknologi: 500 | en_US |
dc.subject.nsi | VDP::Humaniora: 000::Filosofiske fag: 160::Etikk: 164 | en_US |
dc.source.journal | AI and Ethics | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s43681-023-00336-y | |
dc.identifier.cristin | 2172200 | |
cristin.ispublished | true | |
cristin.fulltext | original | |
cristin.qualitycode | 1 | |