Discerning Between the “Easy” and “Hard” Problems of AI Governance

Abstract

While there is widespread consensus that artificial intelligence (AI) needs to be governed owing to its rapid diffusion and societal implications, the current scholarly discussion on AI governance is dispersed across numerous disciplines and problem domains. This paper clarifies the situation by discerning two problem areas, metaphorically titled the "easy" and "hard" problems of AI governance, using a dialectic theory synthesis approach. The "easy problem" of AI governance concerns how organizations' design, development, and use of AI systems align with laws, values, and norms stemming from legislation, ethics guidelines, and the surrounding society. Organizations can provisionally solve the "easy problem" by implementing appropriate organizational mechanisms to govern data, algorithms, and algorithmic systems. The "hard problem" of AI governance concerns AI as a general-purpose technology that transforms organizations and societies. Rather than a matter to be resolved, the "hard problem" is a sensemaking process regarding socio-technical change. Partial solutions to the "hard problem" may open unforeseen issues. While societies should not lose track of the "hard problem" of AI governance, there is significant value in solving the "easy problem" for two reasons. First, the "easy problem" can be provisionally solved by tackling bias, harm, and transparency issues. Second, solving the "easy problem" helps solve the "hard problem," as responsible organizational AI practices create virtuous rather than vicious cycles.

A systematic review of ChatGPT use in K‐12 education

“…AI represents the capacity of computer systems to carry out tasks that usually involve human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, and making decisions. It entails the creation of computational models and algorithms that allow machines to process and analyse data, identify patterns, and make predictions or decisions according to the available information (Minkkinen & Mäntymäki, 2023).…”

AI governance: themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas

“…By organization-level AIG, we mean rules, practices, processes and tools that organizations can implement to govern their AI systems (Mäntymäki et al. , 2022a), as opposed to broader societal issues that state-level and supranational actors seek to address (Butcher and Beridze, 2019; Minkkinen and Mäntymäki, 2023). The research is thus placed within the human-centric (Shneiderman, 2020) and socio-technical (Dignum, 2020) AI research traditions, in contrast to the technical AI literature realm (e.g.…”