The Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix: Models for Classifying AI Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Organisations that design and deploy artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly commit themselves to high-level, ethical principles. However, there still exists a gap between principles and practices in AI ethics. One major obstacle organisations face when attempting to operationalise AI Ethics is the lack of a well-defined material scope. Put differently, the question to which systems and processes AI ethics principles ought to apply remains unanswered. Of course, there exists no universally accepted definition of AI, and different systems pose different ethical challenges. Nevertheless, pragmatic problem-solving demands that things should be sorted so that their grouping will promote successful actions for some specific end. In this article, we review and compare previous attempts to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing AI governance in practice. We find that attempts to classify AI systems found in previous literature use one of three mental model. The Switch, i.e., a binary approach according to which systems either are or are not considered AI systems depending on their characteristics. The Ladder, i.e., a risk-based approach that classifies systems according to the ethical risks they pose. And the Matrix, i.e., a multi-dimensional classification of systems that take various aspects into account, such as context, data input, and decision-model. Each of these models for classifying AI systems comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. By conceptualising different ways of classifying AI systems into simple mental models, we hope to provide organisations that design, deploy, or regulate AI systems with the conceptual tools needed to operationalise AI governance in practice.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 145 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2024.
Builds on
21 of 145 references.
References · 21
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2019Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learningcited by 264
- 2020The Next Decade in AI: Four Steps Towards Robust Artificial Intelligencecited by 194
- 2020Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claimscited by 163
- 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 145
- 2019The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goalscited by 100
- 2018The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standardscited by 97
- 2016Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligencecited by 74
- 2019Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safetycited by 68
- 2017Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contractcited by 35
9 more
- 2021Ethics as a service: a pragmatic operationalisation of AI Ethicscited by 19
- 2021Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulationcited by 19
- 2022Risk management in the Artificial Intelligence Actcited by 16
- 2019Defining AI in Policy versus Practicecited by 15
- 2021Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitationscited by 14
- 2020Regulating Artificial Intelligence: Proposal for a Global Solutioncited by 10
- 2019Defining the scope of AI regulationscited by 8
- 2015What May Visualization Processes Optimize?cited by 7
- 2021Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Intervention Points and Policy Implicationscited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.