Limits of Safe AI Deployment: Differentiating Oversight and Control
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2025
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866909881417596928 |
|---|---|
| author | Manheim, David Homewood, Aidan |
| author_facet | Manheim, David Homewood, Aidan |
| contents | Oversight and control, which we collectively call supervision, are often discussed as ways to ensure that AI systems are accountable, reliable, and able to fulfill governance and management requirements. However, the requirements for "human oversight" risk codifying vague or inconsistent interpretations of key concepts like oversight and control. This ambiguous terminology could undermine efforts to design or evaluate systems that must operate under meaningful human supervision. This matters because the term is used by regulatory texts such as the EU AI Act.
This paper undertakes a targeted critical review of literature on supervision outside of AI, along with a brief summary of past work on the topic related to AI. We next differentiate control as ex-ante or real-time and operational rather than policy or governance, and oversight as performed ex-post, or a policy and governance function. Control aims to prevent failures, while oversight focuses on detection, remediation, or incentives for future prevention. Building on this, we make three contributions. 1) We propose a framework to align regulatory expectations with what is technically and organizationally plausible, articulating the conditions under which each mechanism is possible, where they fall short, and what is required to make them meaningful in practice. 2) We outline how supervision methods should be documented and integrated into risk management, and drawing on the Microsoft Responsible AI Maturity Model, we outline a maturity model for AI supervision. 3) We explicitly highlight boundaries of these mechanisms, including where they apply, where they fail, and where it is clear that no existing methods suffice. This foregrounds the question of whether meaningful supervision is possible in a given deployment context, and can support regulators, auditors, and practitioners in identifying both present and future limitations. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2507_03525 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Limits of Safe AI Deployment: Differentiating Oversight and Control Manheim, David Homewood, Aidan Artificial Intelligence Systems and Control I.2; K.6; D.2.9 Oversight and control, which we collectively call supervision, are often discussed as ways to ensure that AI systems are accountable, reliable, and able to fulfill governance and management requirements. However, the requirements for "human oversight" risk codifying vague or inconsistent interpretations of key concepts like oversight and control. This ambiguous terminology could undermine efforts to design or evaluate systems that must operate under meaningful human supervision. This matters because the term is used by regulatory texts such as the EU AI Act. This paper undertakes a targeted critical review of literature on supervision outside of AI, along with a brief summary of past work on the topic related to AI. We next differentiate control as ex-ante or real-time and operational rather than policy or governance, and oversight as performed ex-post, or a policy and governance function. Control aims to prevent failures, while oversight focuses on detection, remediation, or incentives for future prevention. Building on this, we make three contributions. 1) We propose a framework to align regulatory expectations with what is technically and organizationally plausible, articulating the conditions under which each mechanism is possible, where they fall short, and what is required to make them meaningful in practice. 2) We outline how supervision methods should be documented and integrated into risk management, and drawing on the Microsoft Responsible AI Maturity Model, we outline a maturity model for AI supervision. 3) We explicitly highlight boundaries of these mechanisms, including where they apply, where they fail, and where it is clear that no existing methods suffice. This foregrounds the question of whether meaningful supervision is possible in a given deployment context, and can support regulators, auditors, and practitioners in identifying both present and future limitations. |
| title | Limits of Safe AI Deployment: Differentiating Oversight and Control |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence Systems and Control I.2; K.6; D.2.9 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03525 |