Cited by 37Digitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AISafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

Regulating for 'Normal AI Accidents': Operational Lessons for the Responsible Governance of Artificial Intelligence Deployment

Maas, Matthijs M.·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Abstract

New technologies, particularly those which are deployed rapidly across sectors, or which have to operate in competitive conditions, can disrupt previously stable technology governance regimes. This leads to a precarious need to balance caution against performance while exploring the resulting 'safe operating space'. This paper will argue that Artificial Intelligence is one such critical technology, the responsible deployment of which is likely to prove especially complex, because even narrow AI applications often involve networked (tightly coupled, opaque) systems operating in complex or competitive environments. This ensures such systems are prone to 'normal accident'-type failures which can cascade rapidly, and are hard to contain or even detect in time. Legal and governance approaches to the deployment of AI will have to reckon with the specific causes and features of such 'normal accidents'. While this suggests that large-scale, cascading errors in AI systems are inevitable, an examination of the operational features that lead technologies to exhibit 'normal accidents' enables us to derive both tentative principles for precautionary policymaking, and practical recommendations for the safe(r) deployment of AI systems. This may help enhance the safety and security of these systems in the public sphere, both in the short- and in the long term.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3278721.3278766

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • We might expect to see more destabilising dynamics in systems with more fast-moving AI agents.

    “As such, we might expect to see more destabilising dynamics in systems with more fast-moving AI agents (Maas, 2018).”

    From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Maas, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maas, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Maas, Matthijs M.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-12-27
Pages
223-228
ISSN
3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2908693999
Cited by
37
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
13.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
AI governance, normal accidents, AI safety, cascading failures, technology governance, competitive environment, AI regulation, safe operating space

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review