The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) defines four risk categories for AI systems: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. However, it lacks a clear methodology for the assessment of these risks in concrete situations. Risks are broadly categorized based on the application areas of AI systems and ambiguous risk factors. This paper suggests a methodology for assessing AI risk magnitudes, focusing on the construction of real-world risk scenarios. To this scope, we propose to integrate the AIA with a framework developed by (...) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and related literature. This approach enables a nuanced analysis of AI risk by exploring the interplay between (a) risk determinants, (b) individual drivers of determinants, and (c) multiple risk types. We further refine the proposed methodology by applying a proportionality test to balance the competing values involved in AI risk assessment. Finally, we present three uses of this approach under the AIA: to implement the Regulation, to assess the significance of risks, and to develop internal risk management systems for AI deployers. (shrink)

The EU proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) defines four risk categories: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal. However, as these categories statically depend on broad fields of application of AI, the risk magnitude may be wrongly estimated, and the AIA may not be enforced effectively. This problem is particularly challenging when it comes to regulating general-purpose AI (GPAI), which has versatile and often unpredictable applications. Recent amendments to the compromise text, though introducing context-specific assessments, remain insufficient. To address this, (...) we propose applying the risk categories to specific AI scenarios, rather than solely to fields of application, using a risk assessment model that integrates the AIA with the risk approach arising from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and related literature. This model enables the estimation of the magnitude of AI risk by considering the interaction between (a) risk determinants, (b) individual drivers of determinants, and (c) multiple risk types. We use large language models (LLMs) as an example. (shrink)

The setting of evidential standards is a core practice of scientific assessment for policy. Persuaded by considerations of inductive risk, philosophers generally agree that the justification of evidential standards must appeal to non-epistemic values but debate whether the balance of non-epistemic reasons favours varying evidential standards versus maintaining fixed high evidential standards in assessment, as both sets of standards promote different and important political virtues of advisory institutions. In this paper, I adjudicate the evidential standards debate by developing a novel (...) argument from justice, drawing on the IPCC’s assessment of climate impacts as a case study. I argue that in assessments marked by background evidential inequality, maintaining fixed high evidential standards results in an unequal distribution of ‘epistemic power’ among stakeholders, producing a ‘powerful assessment’ for the data-rich (a high rate of findings) and a ‘weak assessment’ for the data-poor (a low rate of findings). Where such inequalities of epistemic power disadvantage those in data-poor regions with respect to fundamental interests, such as basic human rights, we have decisive reasons of justice to vary evidential standards. (shrink)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has developed a novel framework for assessing and communicating uncertainty in the findings published in their periodic assessment reports. But how should these uncertainty assessments inform decisions? We take a formal decision-making perspective to investigate how scientific input formulated in the IPCC’s novel framework might inform decisions in a principled way through a normative decision model.

Hans Jonas and Arne Næss have argued that philosophers need not be concerned with natural sciences even when they talk about enviromental issues like global warming (§1). However, believing sciences blindly is in itself unphilosophical. So we think, in this paper, the other way around: We consider the current view of global warming, which was reported by the IPCC, critically. The so-called AR4 is divided into two parts. One is about the industrial revolutions (§§5-9); the other is about the (...) greenhouse effect (§§11-20). Through this consideration, it will be revealed: the views of the Establishment are not at all absolute; there still remains room to reconsider them. (shrink)

While the foundations of climate science and ethics are well established, fine-grained climate predictions, as well as policy-decisions, are beset with uncertainties. This chapter maps climate uncertainties and classifies them as to their ground, extent and location. A typology of uncertainty is presented, centered along the axes of scientific and moral uncertainty. This typology is illustrated with paradigmatic examples of uncertainty in climate science, climate ethics and climate economics. Subsequently, the chapter discusses the IPCC’s preferred way of representing uncertainties (...) and evaluates its strengths and weaknesses from a risk management perspective. Three general strategies for decision-makers to cope with climate uncertainty are outlined, the usefulness of which largely depends on whether or not decision-makers find themselves in a context of deep uncertainty. The chapter concludes by offering two recommendations to ease the work of policymakers, faced with the various uncertainties engrained in climate discourse. (shrink)

IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND (SRCCL) -/- Chapter 3: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

International regulation of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) is increasingly conceived as an exercise in risk management. This requires a shared approach for assessing the risks of AWS. This paper presents a structured approach to risk assessment and regulation for AWS, adapting a qualitative framework inspired by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It examines the interactions among key risk factors—determinants, drivers, and types—to evaluate the risk magnitude of AWS and establish risk tolerance thresholds through a risk matrix informed (...) by background knowledge of event likelihood and severity. Further, it proposes a methodology to assess community risk appetite, emphasizing that such assessments and resulting tolerance levels should be determined through deliberation in a multistakeholder forum. The paper highlights the complexities of applying risk-based regulations to AWS internationally, particularly the challenge of defining a global community for risk assessment and regulatory legitimization. (shrink)

Climate change adaptation is largely a local matter, and adaptation planning can benefit from local climate change projections. Such projections are typically generated by accepting climate model outputs in a relatively uncritical way. We argue, based on the IPCC’s treatment of model outputs from the CMIP5 ensemble, that this approach is unwarranted and that subjective expert judgment should play a central role in the provision of local climate change projections intended to support decision-making.

Climate change and decarbonization raise complex justice questions that researchers and policymakers must address. The distributions of greenhouse gas emissions rights and mitigation efforts have dominated justice discourses within scenario research, an integrative element of the IPCC. However, the space of justice considerations is much larger. At present, there is no consistent approach to comprehensively incorporate and examine justice considerations. Here we propose a conceptual framework grounded in philosophical theory for this purpose. We apply this framework to climate mitigation (...) scenarios literature as proof of concept, enabling a more holistic and multidimensional investigation of justice. We identify areas of future research, including new metrics of service provisioning essential for human well-being. [Can be freely read by clicking the ReadCube link below.]. (shrink)

Cuối tháng 8-2023, Exxon Mobil, một trong những hãng kinh doanh dầu mỏ lớn nhất thế giới, tổ hợp lớn nhất của nhóm tách ra từ đế chế dầu mỏ Standard Oil của John D. Rockefeller đã công bố một báo cáo buồn về mục tiêu cứu Trái Đất trước hiểm họa biến đổi khí hậu. Báo cáo này đưa ra 2 kết luận tối quan trọng: a) Dầu mỏ và khí đốt vẫn chiếm tới 54% tổng nguồn cung năng (...) lượng của thế giới vào năm 2050; b) Phát thải CO2 vẫn cao gấp 2 lần kịch bản cần thiết mà IPCC đặt ra. Điều này cũng đồng nghĩa với việc thế giới sẽ thất bại trước mục tiêu kìm giữ nhiệt độ tăng thấp hơn 2⁰C. Đánh giá này dựa trên ước lượng thế giới sẽ sản sinh ra 25 tỷ tấn CO2 vào 2050. (shrink)

As highlighted by the last IPCC report on climate change (IPCC 2022), in addition to mitigation strategies relying on technological innovation and national and international policies, a relevant way to deal with the climate crisis is through personal behaviours such as shifting to sustainable diets. Despite being described as strategies relying on individual choices, however, the need for a global dietary change is hindered by some common narratives about food that have a relevant social dimension. Among them, the (...) most entrenched and troublesome are those related to the idea of «freedom of choice» or «consumer autonomy» (Korthals 2004; Kaplan 2019), which have at their core the idea that humans should always be free to choose their foods. The realisation of a shift from the actual diets, which in developed countries has an extremely high environmental impact, to more sustainable ones, helpful in reaching mitigation targets, seems therefore to require an examination and change in the collective stories we tell about food and, especially, an adjustment of those “freedom narratives” about our relationships with it. In this paper I first suggest that freedom narratives are misleading because the right to food choice is conflated with the right to adequate (quantity and quality of) food. Then, I show that freedom narratives are too narrow because they imply a too narrow view of human rights and lack contextual depth. Novel narratives about food should therefore be broader and should offer deeper knowledge about the relationships between humans, food and the environment. In the frame of these novel, wider stories about food, individual shifts toward sustainable lifestyles will be easier, and these achievements might be able to benefit both climate change mitigation and adaptation. (shrink)

Previzualizare carte Există în prezent o mare varietate de dispute privind încălzirea globală, atât în discursurile politice și sociale cât și în media populară și ​​literatura științifică, cu privire la natura, cauzele și consecințele încălzirii globale. Principala controversă o reprezintă cauzele creșterii temperaturii medii globale a aerului, evoluând de la mijlocul secolului al XX-lea, dacă această tendință de încălzire este fără precedent sau în cadrul variațiilor climatice normale, dacă omenirea a contribuit semnificativ la aceasta, și dacă există un prag, eventual (...) apropiat de valorile actuale, de unde fenomenul se va desfășura ireversibil, în avalanșă. Cele mai multe țări din lume sunt părți la Convenția-cadru a Națiunilor Unite privind schimbările climatice (UNFCCC). Obiectivul final al Convenției este de a împiedica interferența umană periculoasă a sistemului climatic. După cum se precizează în Convenție, acest lucru necesită stabilizarea concentrațiilor de gaze cu efect de seră în atmosferă la un nivel în care ecosistemele se pot adapta în mod natural schimbărilor climatice, producția de alimente să nu fie amenințată, și dezvoltarea economică să poată continua într-un mod durabil. Convenția-cadru a fost convenită în 1992, dar emisiile globale au crescut de atunci. În literatura științifică, există un consens puternic că temperaturile globale ale suprafeței au crescut în ultimele decenii și că tendința este cauzată în principal de emisiile induse de om asupra gazelor cu efect de seră. Niciun organism științific de nivel național sau internațional nu contestă acest punct de vedere. Consensul științific din 2013, menționat în cel de-al cincilea raport de evaluare al IPCC, este că "este extrem de probabil ca influența omului să fi fost cauza dominantă a încălzirii observate de la mijlocul secolului al XX-lea". Academiile naționale de știință au solicitat liderilor mondiali politici de reducere a emisiilor globale. 20.000 oameni de știință din întreaga lume, inclusiv laureați ai Premiului Nobel, au publicat anul acesta o ”atenționare către umanitate”. În curând va fi prea târziu să evităm o catastrofă, și timpul zboară. Pământul este în mâinile noastre prin activitatea noastră zilnică, și în cele ale instituțiilor guvernamentale. Ne distrugem singuri viitorul dacă nu renunțăm imediat la consumurile inutile. "Prin faptul că nu se ia în considerație creșterea populației, rolul economiilor poluante în creștere, și posibilitatea reducerii emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră, stimularea energiilor regenerabile, protejarea habitatului, restabilirea ecosistemelor, stoparea poluării, distrugerea biosistemului și limitarea speciilor străine invazive, biosfera noastră este în pericol," cu riscuri foarte mari de a se ajunge la un 'Armaghedon ecologic'. CUPRINS: Atmosfera Pământului - Scurgeri de atmosferă - Teren - Compoziție - Structura Pământului - Circulație - Importanța - Presiunea atmosferică - - Mecanism - - Atmosfera standard - - Presiunea medie a nivelului mării - - Variația altitudinii - - Variația locală - Meteorologia (Fizica norilor) - - Răcirea aerului până la punctul de rouă - Răcirea adiabatică: pachete în creștere de aer umed - - Ascendența frontală și ciclonică - - Ascendența convectivă - - Ascendența orografică - Răcirea non-adiabatică - - Adăugarea de umezeală în aer - - Suprasaturația - - Suprarăcirea - - Coliziune - coalescență - - Procesul Bergeron - - Coeziune și dizolvare Schimbări climatice - Terminologie - Cauze - Mecanisme de forțare - - Mecanisme interne de forțare - - Variabilitatea ocean-atmosferă - Viaţa - - Mecanisme externe de forțare - Variații orbitale - Variații solare - Vulcanism - Plăci tectonice - Influențe umane - Evidențe fizice - - Măsurători de temperatură și proxi-uri - - Dovezi istorice și arheologice - - Gheţarii - - Pierderea de gheață din Marea Arctică - - Vegetația - Resurse genetice forestiere - - Analiza polenului - - Acoperire de nori și precipitații - - Dendroclimatologia - - Mostre de gheață - - Animale - - Schimbarea nivelului mărilor - Efectul de seră - - Istorie - - Mecanism - - Gaze cu efect de seră - - Rolul schimbărilor climatice - Agricultura - - Impactul schimbărilor climatice asupra agriculturii - Insectele dăunătoare și schimbările climatice - Bolile plantelor și schimbările climatice Încălzirea globală - Note - Schimbări de temperatură observate - - Tendințe regionale și fluctuații pe termen scurt - - Cei mai calzi ani față de tendința generală - Cauzele inițiale (forțe externe) - - Gaze cu efect de seră - Aerosoli și funingine - - Activitatea solară - - Variații ale orbitei Pământului - Reacții la schimbările climatice - Modele climatice - Efecte - - Efecte observate și așteptate asupra mediului - Vremea extremă - Nivelul mării creste - Sisteme ecologice - Efecte pe termen lung - Impacturi pe scară largă și abrupte - - Efectele asupra sistemelor sociale - Habitatul inundațiilor - Economie - Infrastructură - Răspunsuri - - Atenuarea - - Adaptarea - - Ingineria climatică Etica mediului - Categoriile lui Marshall - - Extensia libertariană - - Extensia ecologică - - Etica conservării - Teoriile umaniste Referințe Despre autor - Nicolae Sfetcu - - De același autor - - Contact Editura - MultiMedia Publishing. (shrink)

Climate change assessments rely upon scenarios of socioeconomic developments to conceptualize alternative outcomes for global greenhouse gas emissions. These are used in conjunction with climate models to make projections of future climate. Specifically, the estimations of greenhouse gas emissions based on socioeconomic scenarios constrain climate models in their outcomes of temperatures, precipitation, etc. Traditionally, the fundamental logic of the socioeconomic scenarios—that is, the logic that makes them plausible—is developed and prioritized using methods that are very subjective. This introduces a fundamental (...) challenge for climate change assessment: The veracity of projections of future climate currently rests on subjective ground. We elaborate on these subjective aspects of scenarios in climate change research. We then consider an alternative method for developing scenarios, a systems dynamics approach called ‘Cross-Impact Balance’ (CIB) analysis. We discuss notions of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ as criteria for distinguishing appropriate scenario methods for climate change research. We distinguish seven distinct meanings of ‘objective,’ and demonstrate that CIB analysis is more objective than traditional subjective approaches. However, we also consider criticisms concerning which of the seven meanings of ‘objective’ are appropriate for scenario work. Finally, we arrive at conclusions regarding which meanings of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’ are relevant for climate change research. Because scientific assessments uncover knowledge relevant to the responses of a real, independently existing climate system, this requires scenario methodologies employed in such studies to also uphold the seven meanings of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity.’. (shrink)