AIGP Artificial Intelligence Governance Professional Question and Answers

AI's resource-intensive computing demands pose significant environmental risks. High-performance computing required for training and deploying AI models often leads to substantial energy consumption, which can result in increased carbon emissions and other environmental impacts. This is particularly relevant given the growing concern over climate change and the environmental footprint of technology. Organizations need to consider these environmental risks when developing AI systems, potentially exploring more energy-efficient methods and renewable energy sources to mitigate the environmental impact.

The common types of machine learning include supervised learning, unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning. Cognitive learning is not a type of machine learning; rather, it is a term often associated with the broader field of cognitive science and psychology. Reference: AIGP BODY OF KNOWLEDGE and standard AI/ML literature.

In the United States, the use of AI hiring tools must comply with anti-discrimination laws, accessibility laws, and privacy laws to avoid increasing liability. Anti-discrimination laws (A) ensure that hiring practices do not unlawfully discriminate against protected classes. Accessibility laws (C) require that hiring tools are accessible to all applicants, including those with disabilities. Privacy laws (D) govern the handling of personal data during the hiring process. Product liability laws (B), however, typically apply to the safety and reliability of physical products and would not generally increase liability specifically related to the responsible use of AI hiring tools in the employment context​​​​.

According to the GDPR, individuals have the right to not be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects them. However, there are exceptions to this right, one of which is when the decision is based on the data subject's explicit consent. This means that if an individual explicitly consents to the automated decision-making process, there is no requirement for human intervention to confirm or replace the decision. This exception ensures that individuals can have control over automated decisions that affect them, provided they have given clear and informed consent.

An AI system that maintains its level of performance within defined acceptable limits despite real-world or adversarial conditions is described as resilient. Resilience in AI refers to the system's ability to withstand and recover from unexpected challenges, such as cyber-attacks, hardware failures, or unusual input data. This characteristic ensures that the AI system can continue to function effectively and reliably in various conditions, maintaining performance and integrity. Robustness, on the other hand, focuses on the system's strength against errors, while reliability ensures consistent performance over time. Resilience combines these aspects with the capacity to adapt and recover.

The primary reason the EU is considering updates to its Product Liability Directive is to address digital services and connected products. The current directive does not adequately cover the complexities and challenges posed by modern digital and connected technologies. By updating the directive, the EU aims to ensure that it remains relevant and effective in addressing the liabilities associated with these advanced products, ensuring consumer protection and fair market practices in the digital age.

The GDPR privacy principles that this scenario violates are Purpose Limitation and Data Minimization. Purpose Limitation requires that personal data be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes. Data Minimization mandates that personal data collected should be adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed. In this case, collecting extensive personal information (e.g., IP address, location, gender) and potentially using it beyond the necessary scope for the app's functionality could violate these principles by collecting more data than needed and possibly using it for purposes not originally intended.

Reviewing the terms of use is essential when gathering data from a clinical research partner. This step ensures that the healthcare network complies with all legal and contractual obligations related to data usage. It addresses data ownership, usage limitations, consent requirements, and privacy obligations, which are critical to maintaining ethical standards and avoiding legal repercussions. This review helps ensure that the data is used in a manner consistent with the agreements made and the regulatory environment, which is fundamental for lawful and ethical AI development. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Legal and Regulatory Considerations.

For the artist to receive copyright protection, the most effective approach is to demonstrate that the final artwork includes sufficient creative input by the artist. By updating or altering the images in a way that reflects the artist's personal creativity, the artist can claim originality, which is a core requirement for copyright protection under U.S. law. The other options do not directly address the originality and creative input required for copyright. This is highlighted in the sections on copyright protection in the IAPP AIGP Body of Knowledge.

Differential privacy is a technique used to ensure that the inclusion or exclusion of a single data point does not significantly affect the outcome of any analysis, providing a way to mathematically prove that no specific piece of training data has more than a negligible effect on the model or its output. This is achieved by introducing randomness into the data or the algorithms processing the data. In the context of training large language models (LLMs), differential privacy helps in protecting individual data points while still enabling the model to learn effectively. By adding noise to the training process, differential privacy provides strong guarantees about the privacy of the training data.

The most significant risk from combining the healthcare network’s existing data with the clinical research partner data is privacy risk. Combining data sets, especially in healthcare, often involves handling sensitive information that could lead to privacy breaches if not managed properly. De-identified data can still pose re-identification risks when combined with other data sets. Ensuring privacy involves implementing robust data protection measures, maintaining compliance with privacy regulations such as HIPAA, and conducting thorough privacy impact assessments. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Data Privacy and Security.

A greedy algorithm is one that makes the best choice at each step to achieve an immediate objective, without considering the longer-term consequences. It focuses on local optimization at each decision point with the hope that these local solutions will lead to an optimal global solution. However, greedy algorithms do not always produce the best overall solution for certain problems, but they are useful when an immediate, locally optimal solution is desired. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge, algorithm types section.

Model disgorgement is the technique used to remove the effects of improperly used data from an ML system. This process involves retraining or adjusting the model to eliminate any biases or inaccuracies introduced by the inappropriate data. It ensures that the model's outputs are not influenced by data that was not meant to be used or was used incorrectly. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Data Management and Model Integrity.

In the design phase of integrating data from different sources, identifying fits and gaps is crucial. This process involves understanding how well the data from the clinical research partner aligns with the healthcare network's existing data. It ensures that the combined data set is coherent and can be effectively used for training the AI algorithm. This step helps in spotting any discrepancies, inconsistencies, or missing data that might affect the performance and accuracy of the AI model. It directly addresses the integrity and compatibility of the data, which is foundational before applying any privacy-enhancing technologies, labeling, or evaluating the origin of the data. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Data Integration and Quality.

The primary concern for a company adopting a policy prohibiting the use of generative AI is the risk of accidental disclosure of confidential and proprietary information. Generative AI tools can inadvertently leak sensitive data during the creation process or through data sharing. This risk outweighs the other reasons listed, as protecting sensitive information is critical to maintaining the company’s competitive edge and legal compliance. This rationale is discussed in the sections on risk management and data privacy in the IAPP AIGP Body of Knowledge.

The AI risk that would not have been identified during the procurement process based on the categories of information requested by the third-party consultant is security. The consultant focused on accuracy rates, diversity of training data, and system functionality, which pertain to performance and fairness but do not directly address the security aspects of the AI system. Security risks involve ensuring that the system is protected against unauthorized access, data breaches, and other vulnerabilities that could compromise its integrity. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Security and Risk Management.

The planning phase of the AI life cycle typically includes defining the objective of the model, choosing the appropriate architecture, and understanding the context in which the model will operate. However, the approach to governance is usually established as part of the overall AI governance framework, not specifically within the planning phase. Governance encompasses broader organizational policies and procedures that ensure AI development and deployment align with legal, ethical, and operational standards. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge, AI lifecycle planning phase section.

Minimizing human involvement to the extent practicable is not a best practice during the testing of an ML model. Human oversight is crucial during testing to ensure that the model performs correctly and ethically, and to interpret any anomalies or issues that arise. Best practices include using representative test data, anonymizing data to the extent practicable, and performing testing specific to the intended uses of the model. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Model Testing and Human Oversight.

The best reason for the police department to continue performing investigations even if the AI system scores an individual's likelihood of criminal activity at or above 90% is that AI systems affecting fundamental civil rights should not be fully automated. Human oversight is essential to ensure that decisions impacting civil liberties are made with due consideration of context and mitigating factors that an AI might not fully appreciate. This approach ensures fairness, accountability, and adherence to legal standards. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Ethics and Human Oversight.

In selecting the specific type of algorithm for the AI solution, the healthcare network's data science team is most important. This team possesses the technical expertise and understanding of the data, the clinical context, and the performance requirements needed to make an informed decision about which algorithm is most suitable. While the cloud provider and consulting firm can offer support and infrastructure, and the AI governance committee provides oversight, the data science team’s specialized knowledge is crucial for selecting and implementing the appropriate algorithm. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge, AI governance and team roles section.

Establishing a global AI governance infrastructure involves several key elements, including providing training to foster a culture that promotes ethical behavior, creating policies and procedures to manage third-party risk, and understanding differences in norms across countries. While publicly disclosing ethical principles can enhance transparency and trust, it is not a core element necessary for the establishment of a governance infrastructure. The focus is more on internal processes and structures rather than public disclosure. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on AI Governance and Infrastructure.

Ensuring fairness when training an AI system largely depends on the data attributes and variability. This involves having a diverse and representative dataset that accurately reflects the population the AI system will serve. Fairness can be compromised if the data is biased or lacks variability, as the model may learn and perpetuate these biases. Diverse data attributes ensure that the model learns from a wide range of examples, reducing the risk of biased predictions. Reference: AIGP Body of Knowledge on Ethical AI Principles and Data Management.

Typically, actors involved in the AI development life cycle include data architects (who design the data frameworks), socio-cultural and technical experts (who ensure the AI system is socio-culturally aware and technically sound), and legal and privacy governance experts (who handle the legal and privacy aspects). Government regulators, while important, are not directly engaged in the development process but rather oversee and regulate the industry. Reference: AIGP BODY OF KNOWLEDGE and AI development frameworks.

The GDPR's transparency principle requires that when personal data is processed for automated decision-making, including profiling, data subjects must be informed about the existence of such automated decision-making. Additionally, they must be provided with meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for them. This requirement ensures that data subjects are fully aware of how their personal data is being used and the potential impacts, thereby promoting transparency and trust in the processing activities.

The OECD's Ethical AI Governance Framework aims to ensure that AI development and deployment are carried out ethically while fostering innovation. The framework includes principles like transparency, accountability, and human rights protections to prevent societal harm. It does not focus solely on technical design or post-deployment monitoring (C), nor does it establish industry-specific requirements (B). While explainability is important, the primary goal is to balance innovation with ethical considerations (D).

Training underwriters on the model prior to deployment is crucial so they can apply their own judgment to the initial assessment. While AI models can streamline the process, human judgment is still essential to catch nuances that the model might miss or to account for any biases or errors in the model's decision-making process.

Under the EU regulations, particularly the GDPR, banks using AI for decision-making must inform users about the use of AI and provide mechanisms for users to contest decisions. This is part of ensuring transparency and accountability in automated processing. Explicit consent under the privacy directive (A) and disclosing under the Digital Services Act (B) are not specifically required in this context. An adequacy decision is related to data transfers outside the EU (C).