Cited by 54Ethics and Social Impacts of AILaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Behavioral Use Licensing for Responsible AI

Open access
Contractor, Danish, McDuff, Daniel, Haines, Julia Katherine, Lee, Jenny, Hines, Christopher, Hecht, Brent, Vincent, Nicholas, Li, Hanlin·2022·2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency

Abstract

With the growing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) for many different applications, the sharing of code, data, and models is important to ensure the replicability and democratization of scientific knowledge. Many high-profile academic publishing venues expect code and models to be submitted and released with papers. Furthermore, developers often want to release these assets to encourage development of technology that leverages their frameworks and services. A number of organizations have expressed concerns about the inappropriate or irresponsible use of AI and have proposed ethical guidelines around the application of such systems. While such guidelines can help set norms and shape policy, they are not easily enforceable. In this paper, we advocate the use of licensing to enable legally enforceable behavioral use conditions on software and code and provide several case studies that demonstrate the feasibility of behavioral use licensing. We envision how licensing may be implemented in accordance with existing responsible AI guidelines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3531146.3533143

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • BloomZ's source code is Apache 2.0, an OSI-approved open source licence, while the model weights are released under the Responsible AI Licence (RAIL); Llama 2 is released under Meta's own Community Licence.

    “BloomZ has two relevant licences. Its source code is Apache 2.0, an OSI-approved open source licence, while the model weights are released under the Responsible AI Licence (RAIL) [13]. Llama 2 is released under Meta's own Community Licence.”

    From Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    The paper’s Limitations and Open Questions section describes Apache 2.0 as an open-source license, but does not identify BloomZ’s source-code or model-weight licenses. Searches for “BloomZ” and “Responsible AI License” found no passage establishing the BloomZ licensing claim attached to this citation. The separate Llama 2 sentence is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 2021. Reporting standards and availability of data, materials, code and protocols | Nature Portfolio. https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/ reporting-standards [Online; accessed 9. Sep. 2021].
  2. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9.
  3. Sriram Vasudevan and Krishnaram Kenthapadi. 2020. LiFT: A Scalable Framework for Measuring Fairness in ML Applications. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '20).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Contractor, D., McDuff, D., Haines, J. K., Lee, J., Hines, C., Hecht, B., Vincent, N., & Li, H.
Affiliations
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • RAIL, USA
  • K&L Gates (United States) (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-06-20
Pages
778-788
OpenAlex
W3101447603
Cited by
54
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
11.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
responsible AI, AI ethics guidelines, software licensing, code sharing, AI governance, democratization of AI

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