From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good
Paper proposes a rupture test and RISE AI architecture for evidence-bounded responsible-AI claims, framed via EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF.
The paper argues AI deployment intervenes in pre-existing institutional failures of responsiveness, belonging, care, and accountability, and must therefore evaluate both the system and the institutional rupture it enters. It reviews how the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001 translate principles into protocols, and draws on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas to develop a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation. It distinguishes evidence-bounded deployment from measurement-bounded governance and introduces RISE AI, an architecture for bounded claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment.
- Argues AI deployment is an intervention in pre-existing institutional failures, not only a governance problem.
- Reviews how EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001 translate principles into protocols.
- Proposes a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation.
- Distinguishes evidence-bounded deployment from measurement-bounded governance; RISE AI targets Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, Empowerment.
- Products
- RISE AI
- Organizations
- European UnionNISTISO
From the original article
1 min read at arxiv.orgArtificial Intelligence does more than create a governance problem. It can also reveal where institutions have already failed to provide responsiveness, belonging, care, and accountability. Once deployed, AI becomes an intervention in those conditions.
By Nitesh V. Chawla · arxiv.org
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.