Since 2023, MIT Sloan Management Review has published debates around the responsible use of AI (RAI). The debates were based on specific questions or statements raised to a panel of experts, who were asked to express and explain their dis/agreement with the question or statement (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Our CEO and co-founder, Dr. Richard Benjamins, has participated in all those debates. This series of blog posts gathers his responses to the 14 debates held on RAI.

All blog posts in the series have the same structure. The title is the question, followed by the rate of dis/agreement, and the brief text is the position of Richard. Responses were limited to 1200 characters, so the posts are short.

This is the sixth post in the series.

RAI programs effectively address the risks of using or integrating third-party AI tools.

AGREE

Responsible AI programs should address the risk of using or integrating third-party AI tools. Many organisations already purchase AI tools from the market, rather than developing it themselves. And even if they develop it themselves, they often integrate open-source AI software. Additionally, AI as a Service (AIaaS) is a trend, and thus increasingly more organisations will use AI tools in the cloud built by others. The European AI Act also considers the separate responsibilities of providers and users (those who put AI system on the market) of artificial intelligence. It is therefore of utmost importance for Responsible AI programs to consider the full AI value chain, in addition to in-house AI developments.

To some extent, this is like emissions reporting related to Scope 1 (own emissions) and Scope 3 (emissions generated by value chain), where Scope 3 emissions are usually more impactful than Scope 1. Likewise, in Responsible AI programs, third-party AI tools, products and software are expected to have a significant impact on the ethical and social impact of AI.

The full debate is available here.