法律 AI // 资讯总览
需要被持续追踪的
法律 AI 信号。
本期索引按监管、判例、实务与研究归档;可依主题或关键字定位已发布记录。
法律 AI // 资讯总览
本期索引按监管、判例、实务与研究归档;可依主题或关键字定位已发布记录。
原题: Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation
反映国内外法律 AI 行业发展、前沿技术演进与学术治理动态。
arXiv论文《Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation》(编号arXiv:2608.05800v1)讨论人工智能系统在影响个人和社会决策时产生的不可靠或缺乏正当依据的推理风险。文章认为,现有数据保护框架主要应对数据泄露、重新识别和画像等隐私风险,难以充分处理构念效度、混杂因素、代表性、分布偏移及公平性权衡等问题。论文主张建立可操作的人工智能专门监管框架,将推理有效性作为比例性评估和部署批准的前提,并纳入部署后的持续监测以及对认知风险和潜在收益的结构化评估。文章还指出,人工智能语境下的透明度和可解释性较传统软件更复杂,并以印度最高法院Puttaswamy判决所阐述的信息自决原则为理论基础,将其适用范围从数据收集延伸至数据使用的正当性。
展示来源全文,完整内容以原文页面为准。
arXiv:2608.05800v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly mediate decisions affecting individuals and societies. Existing data protection frameworks address certain privacy-related harms, particularly those arising from data leakage, re-identification, and profiling. However, they inadequately capture a more fundamental risk: unreliable or unjustified inference produced by AI systems even when data collection and processing are legitimate. This article argues that modern AI raises distinct concerns of construct validity, confounding, representativeness, distribution shift, and fairness trade-offs that require specialised regulatory attention. In the context of AI, transparency and explainability acquire distinct and significantly more challenging meanings than in conventional software. A substantial body of work in critical data studies and the measurement-theoretic literature has diagnosed these epistemological limitations. This article's contribution is to derive from that diagnosis a structured and operationalizable regulatory framework. We argue that validity of inference should function as a precondition for proportionality assessment and deployment approval --- a move that existing frameworks, including the EU AI Act's domain-based risk tiers, do not make. We ground this argument in the constitutional principle of informational self-determination articulated in the Indian Supreme Court's \emph{Puttaswamy} judgement, extending its reach from data collection to the legitimacy of use of data. Effective governance must therefore incorporate AI-specific validity assessment, post-deployment monitoring, and proportionality assessments grounded in structured articulation of both epistemic risk and potential benefit.
文书与研报规范引注
《人工智能推理有效性与透明度监管框架》(来源: arXiv cs.CY,发布日期: 2026/10/14,访问链接: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05800)