Search results

[…] located on FPF website »Official recognition of sponsor during the Luncheon by FPF »Opportunity to make short remarks during the Luncheon (2 minutes) »Opportunity to provide (1) promotional item and (1) giveaway via QR code. Must be approved in advance by FPF Sponsorship Team O u r inaugural DC Privacy Forum was such a […]

[…] located on FPF website »Official recognition of sponsor during the Luncheon by FPF »Opportunity to make short remarks during the Luncheon (2 minutes) »Opportunity to provide (1) promotional item and (1) giveaway via QR code. Must be approved in advance by FPF Sponsorship Team O u r inaugural DC Privacy Forum was such a […]

[…] and human oversight, for organizations seeking to develop or deploy AI agents in commercial settings.  Specifically, this Issue Brief explores:  Part 1: Definitions. While agents are not new, emerging definitions across industries describe them as AI systems that are capable of completing more complex, multi-step tasks, and exhibit greater autonomy over how to achieve […]

[…] ft – 3 6 5-c o pilo t.p d f ; Kash m ir Hill, “S he Is in Lo ve W it h ChatG PT,” The New Yo rk Tim es (J a n . 17 , 20 25 ), h ttp s:/ /w ww.n ytim es.c o m /2 0 25 /0 […]

[…] patterns Narrowing of Choice for Groups SOCIAL DETRIMENT Network Bubbles E.g. Varied exposure to opportunity or evaluation based on “who you know” Filter Bubbles E.g. Algorithms that promote only familiar news and information Dignitary Harms E.g. Emotional distress due to bias or a decision based on incorrect data Stereotype Reinforcement E.g. Assumption that computed […]

[…] navigate these issues; however, if developers and deployers of AI tools evaluate their risk mitigation strategies to consider the vast array of potential AI harms, it can promote fairness, encourage responsible data use, and combat discrimination. To facilitate these discussions, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) has updated our 2017 resource (“Distilling the Harms […]

FPF has updated our 2017 resource (“Distilling the Harms of Automated Decision-making”) with the goal of identifying and categorizing a broad range of potential harms that may result from automated decision-making, including heightened harms related to generative AI (GenAI), and potential mitigation practices. FPF reviewed leading books, articles, and other literature on the topic of […]

[…] patterns Narrowing of Choice for Groups SOCIAL DETRIMENT Network Bubbles E.g. Varied exposure to opportunity or evaluation based on “who you know” Filter Bubbles E.g. Algorithms that promote only familiar news and information Dignitary Harms E.g. Emotional distress due to bias or a decision based on incorrect data Stereotype Reinforcement E.g. Assumption that computed […]

[…] navigate these issues; however, if developers and deployers of AI tools evaluate their risk mitigation strategies to consider the vast array of potential AI harms, it can promote fairness, encourage responsible data use, and combat discrimination. To facilitate these discussions, the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) has updated our 2017 resource (“Distilling the Harms […]

[…] tech policy. In March, Governor Cox signed several bills related to the governance of generative Artificial Intelligence systems into law. Among them, SB 332 and SB 226 amend Utah’s 2024 Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (AIPA) while HB 452 establishes new regulations for mental health chatbots. The Future of Privacy Forum has released a chart detailing key elements of these new laws.