Skip to content

Main Insight

To aid in our information-gathering efforts, starting today, we are inviting those associated with the development of AI systems used in COVID-19 pandemic response to complete our survey by August 2nd, 2021.

Classifying AI systems used in COVID-19 response

July 26, 2021

 

The Future Society (TFS), with support from the Global Partnership for AI (GPAI) and the OECD, is welcoming those associated with the development of AI systems used in COVID-19 pandemic response to complete this survey by August 2nd, 2021 AoE. This includes AI systems launched during the pandemic as well as repurposed pre-existing systems. The survey is based on the OECD Framework for Classification of AI Systems; we expect it will take 15-25 minutes to complete. Data collected via this survey will be shared on an open-access, GPAI-labeled repository. One to three of the most promising classified AI systems—in terms of impact, practicality, and scalability—will be selected by the GPAI AI & Pandemic Response Subgroup for support in some form by GPAI. We would be grateful if you would share this invitation with those for whom the survey may be relevant.

Last year, The Future Society, with support from the GPAI AI & Pandemic Response Subgroup, conducted an analysis of emerging AI “initiatives”—including AI systems, governance mechanisms, ethical/policy frameworks, and platforms to fast-track research and crowdsource projects—targeted towards COVID-19 pandemic response.

In our findings, published in Responsible AI in Pandemic Response, we overviewed initiatives’ key enabling factors: characteristics that underlie their present and likely future success, such as their organizational architecture, credibility, innovativeness, and implementation of adaptive strategies. The key enabling factors that emerged included the following: the implementation of open science; cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration; acceleration and refinement of logistical processes that faced exceptional strain during the pandemic; and the capability of being reused or repurposed in future pandemics. We also presented common challenges that initiatives faced, including: time-consuming procedures to establish compliance with existing data protection and privacy regulations​; a lack of reliable access to appropriate datasets; and heightened public concern and scrutiny around the use and collection of sensitive healthcare data.

To respond to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, we concluded our report with a number of recommendations for the AI & Pandemic Response Subgroup, including:

  1. Co-shaping a Global Health Data Governance Framework, with other authoritative multilateral institutions, which will facilitate the development of AI tools that utilize medical data for drug discovery and clinical treatment;
  2. Supporting the development of a centralized portal for the advancement of cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary research;
  3. Addressing existing social acceptability challenges that hinder public and medical adoption of AI tools and applications;
  4. Setting up agile task forces that traverse GPAI working groups and respond to immediate needs and challenges.

In June, 2021, acting upon Recommendations 2 and 4, the Subgroup formed a Project Steering Group to launch the AI-Powered Immediate Response to Pandemics project, with the goal of “directly [supporting] impactful and practical AI initiatives to help in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.” The Future Society is honored to have been selected as a partner in this project to produce a “living repository” (an open-access, regularly-updated dataset) of AI initiatives developed and used in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. You are welcome to read more information about the project and commentary from the analysts in our post on the The AI Wonk, curated by the OECD.

Happening now!

To aid in our information-gathering efforts, starting today, we are inviting those associated with the development of AI systems used in COVID-19 pandemic response to complete this survey by August 2nd, 2021 AoE. In addition to crowdsourcing input via this survey, our analysts have begun classifying systems identified in last year’s report. The metrics we will use to analyze these systems include those delineated in the OECD Framework for the Classification of AI Systems, as well as additional metrics devised for this particular use case with the Project Steering Group. Beginning August 2021, Subgroup members will utilize this repository to select one to three of the most promising initiatives—in terms of impact, practicality, and scalability—to be supported by GPAI.

For comments or inquiries, please contact samuel.curtis@thefuturesociety.org.

Related resources

Heavy is the Head that Wears the Crown

Heavy is the Head that Wears the Crown

In this blueprint, we explain why a tiered approach makes sense in the EU AI Act and how to build a risk-based tiered regulatory regime for GPAI – the technicalities involved, which requirements should be imposed on their corresponding tiers, and how to enforce them.

Giving Agency to the AI Act

Giving Agency to the AI Act

Earlier this year, we conducted research comparing different institutional models for an EU-level body to oversee the implementation and enforcement of the AI Act. We're pleased to share our memo: Giving Agency to the AI Act.

Response to NIST Generative AI Public Working Group Request for Resources

Response to NIST Generative AI Public Working Group Request for Resources

TFS submitted a list of clauses to govern the development of general-purpose AI systems (GPAIS) to the U.S. NIST Generative AI Public Working Group (NIST GAI-PWG).

Response to U.S. OSTP Request for Information on National Priorities for AI

Response to U.S. OSTP Request for Information on National Priorities for AI

Our response put forward national priorities focused on security standards, measurement and evaluation frameworks, and an industry-wide code of conduct for GPAIS development.

Strengthening the AI operating environment

Strengthening the AI operating environment

In a paper published at the International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Assistance for Legal Professionals in the Digital Workplace (Legal AIIA), Dr. Bruce Hedin and Samuel Curtis present an argument for distributed competence as a means to mitigate risks posed by AI systems.

Response to U.S. NTIA AI Accountability Policy Request for Comment

Response to U.S. NTIA AI Accountability Policy Request for Comment

Our response emphasized the need for scrutiny in the design and development of general-purpose AI systems (GPAIS). We encourage the implementation of third-party assessments and audits, contestability tools for impacted persons, and a horizontal regulatory approach toward GPAIS.