From Incidents to Insights: Patterns of Responsibility following AI Harms

TL;DR

This paper analyzes the AI Incident Database to uncover social and accountability patterns following AI failures, revealing that responsible parties' identification does not always lead to accountability and highlighting societal responses to AI harms.

Contribution

It introduces a novel social and accountability perspective on AI incidents, expanding beyond technical failure analysis to include societal reactions and responsibility patterns.

Findings

Identifiable responsible parties do not guarantee increased accountability.

Context influences the societal response to AI incidents.

Controversy-rich incidents reveal societal expectations and reactions.

Abstract

The AI Incident Database was inspired by aviation safety databases, which enable collective learning from failures to prevent future incidents. The database documents hundreds of AI failures, collected from the news and media. However, criticism highlights that the AIID's reliance on media reporting limits its utility for learning about implementation failures. In this paper, we accept that the AIID falls short in its original mission, but argue that by looking beyond technically-focused learning, the dataset can provide new, highly valuable insights: specifically, opportunities to learn about patterns between developers, deployers, victims, wider society, and law-makers that emerge after AI failures. Through a three-tier mixed-methods analysis of 962 incidents and 4,743 related reports from the AIID, we examine patterns across incidents, focusing on cases with public responses tagged in the database. We identify 'typical' incidents found in the AIID, from Tesla crashes to deepfake scams. Focusing on this interplay between relevant parties, we uncover patterns in accountability and social expectations of responsibility. We find that the presence of identifiable responsible parties does not necessarily lead to increased accountability. The likelihood of a response and what it amounts to depends highly on context, including who built the technology, who was harmed, and to what extent. Controversy-rich incidents provide valuable data about societal reactions, including insights into social expectations. Equally informative are cases where controversy is notably absent. This work shows that the AIID's value lies not just in preventing technical failures, but in documenting patterns of harms and of institutional response and social learning around AI incidents. These patterns offer crucial insights for understanding how society adapts to and governs emerging AI technologies.