AI Unscripted with Kieran Gilmurray

When Algorithms Cross the Line: Understanding Real-World AI Incidents

• Kieran Gilmurray

Share episode

When AI goes wrong, who pays the price? Our deep dive into recent research uncovers the troubling realities behind AI privacy breaches and ethical failures that affect millions of users worldwide.

TLDR:

  • Research analyzed 202 incidents tagged as privacy or ethical concerns from major AI incident databases
  • Four-stage framework covers the entire AI lifecycle: training, deployment, application, and societal impacts
  • Nearly 40% of incidents involve non-consensual imagery, deepfakes, and impersonation
  • Most incidents stem from organizational decisions rather than purely technical limitations
  • Only 6% of incidents are self-reported by AI companies, while the public and victims report 38%
  • Current governance systems show significant disconnect between actual harm and meaningful penalties
  • Recommendations include standardized reporting, mandatory disclosures, and stronger enforcement
  • Individual AI literacy becoming increasingly important to recognize and resist manipulation

Drawing from an analysis of over 200 documented AI incidents, we peel back the layers on how privacy violations occur throughout the entire AI lifecycle—from problematic data collection during training to deliberate safeguard bypassing during deployment. Most concerningly, nearly 40% of all incidents involve non-consensual deepfakes and digital impersonation, creating real-world harm that current governance systems struggle to address effectively.

The findings challenge common assumptions about AI incidents. While technical limitations play a role, the research reveals that organizational decisions and business practices are far more influential in causing privacy breaches than purely technical failures. Perhaps most troubling is the transparency gap: only 6% of incidents are self-reported by AI companies themselves, with victims and the general public being the primary whistleblowers.

We explore the consequences ranging from reputation damage to false accusations, financial loss, and even wrongful arrests due to AI misidentification. The research highlights a critical disconnect between the frequency of concrete harm and the application of meaningful penalties—suggesting current regulations lack adequate enforcement teeth.

For professionals and everyday users alike, understanding these patterns is crucial as AI becomes increasingly embedded in our daily lives. The episode offers practical insights into recognizing manipulation, protecting personal data, and joining the conversation about necessary governance reforms including standardized incident reporting and stronger accountability mechanisms.

What role should you play in demanding transparency from the companies whose algorithms increasingly shape your digital experience? Listen in and join the conversation about creating a more ethical AI future.

Research Study Link

Support the show

For more information:

🌎 Visit my website: https://KieranGilmurray.com
🔗 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kierangilmurray/
🦉 X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/KieranGilmurray
📽 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@KieranGilmurray

📕 Buy my book 'The A-Z of Organizational Digital Transformation' - https://kierangilmurray.com/product/the-a-z-organizational-digital-transformation-digital-book/

📕 Buy my book 'The A-Z of Generative AI - A Guide to Leveraging AI for Business' - The A-Z of Generative AI – Digital Book Kieran Gilmurray

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, so you've probably seen AI popping up everywhere, right, it's not just sci-fi anymore, it's in our emails, making pictures.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, it's really becoming part of the furniture.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Exactly. But when things go sideways, especially with our privacy, what are the actual consequences? What's really happening out there?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Right, and that's what we're doing today Deep dive, we're cutting through the noise, looking at a recent research paper someone shared. It's all about AI, privacy and ethical problems.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Oh, okay.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Think of it as the key intel you need without reading endless reports.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So a listener sent this in and it sounds pretty thorough, based mainly on the AIAAAC repository. That's the AI Algorithmic Automation. Incident Controversy Thingy.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

That's the one. And they didn't just stop there. They checked it against other big databases too, like AID, the OECD's monitor, trying to get the full picture. So the mission today for you listening is pretty clear.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Understand what's happening with AI incidents, see where the current rules or governance is falling short.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

And figure out how we might move towards something safer, more ethical.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly, and it's all coming straight from what these researchers actually found.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

All right, let's get a handle on the scope then. This research covered 2023 and 2024.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yep, they started with, I think, 622 reports from AIA AIC.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Wow Okay.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

And then they really focused, zeroed in on 202 that were specifically tagged privacy or ethical.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

How did they sift through all that? It must have been a process, yeah it was systematic.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

They downloaded everything for that period, then ran keyword searches privacy, ethical, the obvious ones.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Makes sense.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

And, crucially, they then went through and cleaned it up, removed duplicates and, importantly, anything that was just speculation like oh, this might happen.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Ah, so no hypotheticals, just stuff that actually occurred.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Precisely.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

They were laser focused on real world events yeah, things where there was proof of actual harm or definite risks, or where the public got seriously concerned.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, grounded in reality.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

That's the idea. It gives their analysis real weight.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So from those 202 incidents, incidents, what patterns did they see? How did they like organize it all?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

well, what's really neat is the framework they used. They looked at the whole ai life cycle life cycle yeah, from when it's being trained to when it's deployed, how it's used day to day, and then the broader societal impact four stages okay, training, deployment, application societal, that makes sense it gives a really useful way to see when and where these problems pop up.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Right, so let's start at the beginning Training. What kind of trouble starts there?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

So in the training phase, two main things. First, what they called secondary data use for AI training.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Secondary use meaning.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Meaning. Data collected for one thing gets reused to train AI, but without people really knowing or agreeing to it. The example they used was LinkedIn reports that they scraped user data for AI training, maybe without being super clear about it?

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah, that raises immediate red flags. Are data being used in ways we didn't sign up for?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly so. The very foundation the data AI learns from can be an issue right from the start.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, what was the second training problem?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

That was using problematic databases. So the data sets themselves have issues, biases, errors, maybe even harmful stuff.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Like toxic content.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, or copyrighted material. They mentioned the C4 data set. Trained on tons of web content, some of it unsafe.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Right.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

And the worry is the AI learns these flaws. It learns the bias or learns to generate harmful stuff itself.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Garbage in, garbage out, the classic problem.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Pretty much. If the textbook is biased, your knowledge will be too.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, makes sense. So that's training. What about the next stage, ai deployment? When the AI is actually out there working.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Right Deployment. They found five main types of incidents here. First one echoes the training issue, secondary data use, but now for AI functions.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So the AI is trained, but it's still using data in ways it maybe shouldn't.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Kind of it's using data to actually do its job, but accessing stuff beyond what people might expect. They cited a police department allegedly using citizen data secretly to test AI analytic software.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Wow, without telling anyone.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Apparently so. Even after training. How the AI uses data day to day can be a privacy minefield.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

That sounds like a major overreach. Okay, what else happens at deployment?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Next was AI False, unexpected and disappointing behavior. Basically, the AI messes up, Wrong results, unreliable, doesn't meet expectations.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Even if it's technically working as programmed.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, the example was an AI chatbot falsely accusing a journalist of crams. Just completely misinterpreted stuff.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Ouch, that could ruin someone's reputation.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Absolutely Serious real-world harm from an AI error. Then number three was deliberate bypassing of AI safeguards.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

People trying to trick the AI.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly Exploiting loopholes Like prompt injection, feeding it sneaky commands hidden in normal requests.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

To get it to do things it shouldn't.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah like tricking Snapchat's AI into giving up user location data it was supposed to protect. It shows how hard it is to fully secure these things. A constant cat and mouse game. Then you got it. The last two were AI data breach, like a hiring chatbot getting hacked exposing applicant data.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Thankfully less common in their sample and unauthorized sale of user data, companies just selling off user conversations, photos, whatever from their AI systems.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So data security is still a huge issue, even once it's deployed.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Absolutely critical.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, lots of potential problems there. What about the next stage? Ai application.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

This is when we, like everyday users, are interacting with it Right and this stage this had the most reported incidents. A huge chunk was nonconsensual imagery, impersonation and fake content.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Ah, the deep fakes.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly Deep fake porn, those scammy celebrity videos like the fake Mr Beast giveaway.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah, I've seen those.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Or just making realistic, fake images of people without permission. This category alone was like 39% of all incidents they looked at Really significant.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Wow, nearly 40%. That's alarming Shows how easily AI can be misused for fakes and harassment.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

It really does. Another big one in application was problematic AI implementation.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Meaning how it's built into products.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, the way it's designed or integrated causes problems. Think Microsoft, recall the feature that constantly takes screenshots. Huge privacy uproar right Definitely.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Made a lot of people uneasy. Constant recording.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, it shows. Even helpful sounding features can cross lines, depending on the design. Then there's the use of unlawful or problematic AI tools.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So using AI, that's already known to be dodgy.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Pretty much like AI for intense employee surveillance. Some companies got sued over that, or those denutification apps that digitally remove clothes. The tool itself is the ethical problem, sometimes not just how it's used.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Right. The tool itself is flawed from the start. What was the last one for application?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Last one here was denonymization, stalking and harassment Using AI to figure out who anonymous people are online.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

That sounds dangerous.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

It is. They mentioned, a really disturbing case someone using facial recognition to identify anonymous adult film performers from screenshots, matching them to social media.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

That's horrifying, a total violation of privacy and safety.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Chilling stuff Shows how AI can be weaponized. Personally.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, so that covers application. Finally, the researchers looked at societal level impacts. What falls under that?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

These are the broader ripple effects. First, public entity amplifying misleading AI content.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Like politicians or official bodies spreading AI fakes.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, intentionally or not, sharing AI-generated articles, images that are wrong or biased. They mentioned a politician allegedly using AI for a fake celebrity endorsement.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Oof that could easily manipulate voters if they trust the source.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Big risk for public discourse, definitely. And the final category they found yes. Was unclear. User agreements and policy statements.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Ah, the dreaded terms and conditions.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly when the rules for using an AI are vague, complex or just buried. People don't know what they're agreeing to.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Like how their data might be used for future AI training Precisely.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

People don't know what they're agreeing to Like how their data might be used for future AI training. Precisely, they cited a case with design software users worried about unclear language letting the company use their work to train AI. It erodes trust even if no harm has happened yet.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, so that taxonomy gives a really full picture Training, deployment, application, societal impacts. But why are these things happening? Did they look at the root causes?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

They did. They grouped the causes into five main buckets.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, what are the underlying reasons for these problems?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

First category AI technical causes. This is the AI itself messing up.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

How so.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Misinterpreting things, hallucinating, making stuff up malfunctioning, just being inefficient or wrong and AI bias fits here too often from that bad training data we talked about.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So sometimes it's just the tech's limitations or flaws, not necessarily bad intent.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Right. The tech itself is the source of the problem, sometimes Second category AI developer causes.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

This is about the people building it.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, specifically when they intentionally program it with problematic functions like that invasive employee monitoring software. It was designed to be intrusive.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So the responsibility lies with the developers in those cases to think ethically from the start.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Absolutely. Build ethics in, Don't just tack it on later. Third category, and this one's huge human causes.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, how do people cause these incidents?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Lots of ways Deliberately misusing AI tools, obviously, yeah, but also just lack of trust, leading people to resist it or the opposite, overtrusting it.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Like the person wrongly accused of shoplifting by facial recognition.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly, even though they had ID. Also, internal threats employees misusing access, like those Amazon ring workers looking at private videos.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So human behavior malicious, mistaken or careless is a massive factor.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Crucial. Ai is a tool and humans decide how to wield it, responsibly or not. Fourth category organizational causes.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

This is the companies and organizations using the AI.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yep, their decisions, their practices. It's a broad one Lack of informed consent, not being transparent about data use. Okay, consent not being transparent about data use, breaking the law, like Clearview AI, getting fined over biometric data. Poor business ethics, like maybe overhyping self-driving tech. Not having clear AI policies. Weak data protection, like bad passwords. Vague terms of service Again, no proper fail safes.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Danielle Pletka Wow, A lot falls under organizational Marc.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Thiessen. It really shows how vital ethical frameworks and good governance are within these companies. Not just tech, it's culture.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Makes sense and the final category of causes.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Fifth one governmental causes.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

How does government play into it?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

A couple of ways Legal loopholes, just a lack of rules for things like deepfakes in some places, and also governments themselves, potentially using AI to sway public opinion, like with deepfakes and campaigns.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So governments need to regulate and be responsible users themselves.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly, it's a multi-layered problem Causes from tech flaws right up to government actions.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, so we have the types of incidents and the causes. What about who is considered responsible? They looked at that too, right?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Four groups yeah, who gets pointed at when things go wrong? First group AI systems and developers.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

The tech and the people who built it.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Right, the algorithms, the companies, their partners. They were often linked to the AI, just messing up false outputs and also, unsurprisingly, for not being clear about how data is used.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Seems logical. The creators have a primary responsibility.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Seems so Second group, end users.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Us People using the AI.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, both those who misuse it on purpose for fake images, harassment, and those who just misunderstand it or its output.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So malicious users are responsible for the deliberate abuse.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Predictably yes, which points to needing user education but also better safeguards built in.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Good point. Who's the third group?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Third group AI, adopting organizations and government entities.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

The companies and agencies actually deploying AI in their work.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly. They are often responsible for those problematic implementations, often tied back to dodgy business ethics or exploiting legal gray areas.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So just grabbing AI tech without thinking it through ethically can cause big problems.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

For them and the public. Yeah, Responsibility spreads beyond just the creators and the final group.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Number four.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Data repositories the places holding the massive data sets for training.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Ah, the data hoarders.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Sometimes found responsible if the training data itself was flawed and, interestingly, sometimes linked to the unauthorized sale of user data too. So data custodians have a share of the responsibility.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

OK, and how do we even find out about these incidents? Who blows the whistle or reports them? They looked at sources of disclosure.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

They did Four main groups there too.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Who is usually raising the alarm?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Most often victims and the general public, along with third-party witnesses. That was like 38% of cases.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Really so ordinary people are the main source.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Yeah, especially for things like the non-consensual images or when AI implementation felt wrong. It shows people are noticing and speaking up.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

That's actually encouraging. What's the second source?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

External investigators and authorities Think media, law enforcement regulators, independent researchers, fact checkers. But, watchdogs Exactly, they were key for uncovering things like improper secondary data use or illegal AI tools being used, essential for accountability.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Definitely need those checks and balances. What about the AI companies themselves? Do they report problems often.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Well, that's interesting. The third group AI development and application stateholders, the developers, the adopters, the database orgs. They only accounted for about 6% of disclosures.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Only 6%. That seems low.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

It is pretty low. Suggests self-reporting isn't happening much A lack of transparency there.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah, that's a barrier to understanding the real scale of the problem.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Final group insiders and exposers, whistleblowers, white hat hackers finding flaws. Smallest group, only 2%.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Wow.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Probably shows how risky it can be to report from the inside, but highlights how valuable those few who do come forward are.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Absolutely Okay. So let's talk consequences. What actually happens when these incidents occur? What's the damage?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

They broke consequences down into four areas Concrete harms, sanctions, corrections, admonishment and potential harms.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Okay, concrete harms. What does that cover? Tangible damage?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Exactly Reported, in 45% of incidents Split into societal damage like mass panic from false info and individual harm.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Like what for individuals?

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Pricy loss, reputation damage from deep fakes, financial loss from scams, getting falsely accused by facial recognition, even losing freedom through misidentification.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

These are really serious tangible impacts.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Very real, underscores the risks. Then there are sanctions or corrections.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So repercussions did, that happen often.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

In about 37% of cases, things like fines, official investigations, legal demands to change the AI, pulling problematic tools off the market, developers fixing flaws, third parties trying to mitigate harm.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So sometimes there is accountability or an attempt to fix it.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Sometimes. Yes, there are mechanisms, even if maybe not always used. Third category admonishment.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Admonishment like getting told off. Category admonishment.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Admonishment, like getting told off Kind of, but broader Public backlash, widespread user concern, criticism from lawmakers, advocacy groups, basically a loss of trust. This was actually the most frequent consequence 55% of incidents.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Ah, so even without fines, the reputational hit and public distrust can be significant.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Huge Public opinion matters and finally, potential harms. Things that could happen, yeah, identified in 5% be significant, huge Public opinion matters and, finally, potential harms Things that could happen yeah, identified in 5% of cases. Yeah, worries about future negative impacts. That'd be great. Ai being used for sophisticated manipulation of emotions, super personalized manipulation, more cyberbullying enabling advanced cyber attacks.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

So, even if the damage isn't immediate, the future risk is a serious concern.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Definitely All right. So, looking at all that data, the types, causes, responsibilities, consequences what were the main takeaways, the big insights or gaps the researchers found?

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Well, a huge one was that most reported problems happen after deployment, in the deployment and application stages.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Right.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Which strongly suggests there's not enough reporting or risk assessment before these things go live. A big suggests there's not enough reporting or risk assessment before these things go live. A big gap there need more focus on prevention early on.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Proactive, not just reactive, makes sense. What else?

AI Generated Speaker 1:

The sheer volume of incidents with non-consensual images, fakes, impersonation that stood out as needing urgent attention.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

That 39% figure again.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah, Also that organizational decisions by developers and adopters are behind most incidents, even by companies. You'd expect to have high ethical standards.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

So it's not just road code, it's choices being made at the company level.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Exactly. It's an organizational challenge, not just technical. They also noted a disconnect between how often people suffer actual concrete harm and how often there are serious legal penalties or sanctions Suggests. The current rules maybe aren't keeping up with the real world damage.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

The enforcement isn't matching the harm.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Seems like it. And, finally, like we discussed, the underreporting by the AI developers and users themselves, that lack of transparency is a major hurdle.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Definitely hinders finding real solutions. Yeah, transparency is a major hurdle Definitely hinders finding real solutions, yeah. So, given all that, what did the researchers suggest? What are the recommendations or implications for AI governance?

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Well, first off, a big push for better AI literacy for everyone.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

So people can spot manipulation.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yeah, recognize it, resist it, especially emotional or opinion manipulation, and just generally be more critical of AI generated stuff. Don't just trust it because an AI made it.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Healthy skepticism, good advice.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

What else they recommended? Standardized AI incident reporting frameworks. A common way for everyone to report issues.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Make it consistent.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

And maybe even mandatory AI incident disclosure, like we have for data breaches or cybersecurity incidents.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

That would really boost transparency, wouldn't it?

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Could make a big difference. They also talked about improving detection and prevention, better security, watermarking AI content, so it's identifiable.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Technical fixes.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

And stressing that current governance is just not enough. We need stronger enforcement of rules, existing and new ones. Rules without teeth don't do much.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Enforcement is definitely key, any specific groups needing attention.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Yes, they highlighted kids Need child-specific protections, better content moderation on platforms kids use to shield them from harmful AI content.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Makes sense.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

And just acknowledging the fundamental privacy risk that comes with AI's ability to process vast amounts of data. Oh, and, importantly, the researchers themselves noted limitations right Relying on one main database only public incidents, potential researcher bias.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

Good point. It's a snapshot, not the whole hidden picture.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Exactly, and they said future work should track trends over time, maybe find ways to capture those unreported incidents too.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

So a valuable study, but more work needed. So if we boil it all down for everyone listening, what's the bottom line?

AI Generated Speaker 1:

The bottom line is current AI governance just isn't keeping pace. We're seeing a lot of privacy and ethical problems, and the systems to manage them are lagging behind.

AI Generated Speaker 2:

You need a bigger toolkit.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

Exactly A multifaceted approach Better public understanding, standard reporting, tougher rules with real enforcement and more focus on prevention. Yeah, this deep dive, I think, really clarifies the critical point we're at Understanding these incidents, the causes, the consequences. It's absolutely vital if we want AI to actually benefit us without trampling on rights and ethics.

AI Generated Speaker 1:

That's the stage for what needs to happen next it really does, and it leaves you, the listener, with something to think about, doesn't it? Considering how powerful AI is getting, how it's shaping our reality, what role do you think individuals have? How much should we be demanding transparency and accountability from the people building and deploying this tech? It's a big Something to mull over. As AI becomes even more woven into your life, your work, whatever field you're in, definitely keep thinking about these implications.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Mr Kieran Gilmurray

Host