AI safety regulations and responsible use guidelines are forthcoming. This will require building Responsible AI and/or AI Safety Programs to deliver on obligations and contend Ethical and forward looking organizations have already started to build out AI Safety and Responsible

This creates a false dichotomy between progress and safety. Technically , we must build robust safety mechanisms and engineering practices. While reduced regulation may accelerate certain types of commercial innovation, it risks neglecting safety We need breakthroughs in AI safety just as much as we need advances in AI capabilities.

Environmental Health and Safety / Environmental Stewardship · Adaptive Management for Service Reliability Adaptive Management for Service Reliability 8) Carbon Neutrality 9) Environmental Health and Safety figure below shows that the pillars “Climate Change Risk and Adaptation”, “Environmental Health and Safety number of secondary dependencies: 1) Community Sustainability 2) Environmental Health and Safety The figure below shows that the pillars “Active and Green Transportation”, “Environmental Health and Safety

To get there we will first consider AI Safety and the challenges that exist to design safe and responsible Even guard rails used to improve safety are for the most part blunt and crude instruments having their This sounds similar to on-going tensions between production and safety or quality or security or any AI Sustainability is perhaps what drives the need for AI safety, security, quality, legal, and ethical However, it sustainability that drives our need for safety.

Total Value Chain Analysis You can replace the word ethical with "safety" or "quality" or "environmental according to this law, the system (in this case the value chain) will always optimize away from "quality", "safety This dynamic may help explain the tensions that always exist between production and safety, or production That’s why we are seeing more roles in the “C-Suite” such as Chief Security Officer, Chief Safety Officer

Safety, quality, and risk live in the latter. Most businesses will not build safety into their AI systems. Does the auditor assess the level of safety a system has achieved? That is an assessment of the appearance of safety. Building safety in has a name. I call it Forward Assurance.

Compliance is about meeting obligations across many domains, including safety, security, sustainability called this Compliance 2.0, although each domain has its own name for it: Total Quality Management, Safety II, HOP, Functional & Process Safety, Cybernetics, Lean, and others. Compliance 2.0 requires operational capabilities to achieve targets and advance outcomes towards better safety maintain compliance through operational design Advance capabilities that drive better outcomes across safety

facility changes is important to most companies and is a central part of every process and pipeline safety Ensuring the continuity of safety-critical roles during personnel changes will help eliminate gaps in your safety program so that incidents do not occur. Unfortunately, many companies either do not track or are even aware of which roles are safety-critical Continuity of safety-critical roles is essential to maintain safety programs.

This creates a number of tensions including that between production and compliance objectives such as: safety When it comes to safety, quality, and regulatory compliance this can create significant risk. Now, this line of thinking can (inappropriately) also be made regarding safety. If only workers acted in a safe manner we would not need safety systems. Safety systems only exist because of unsafe behaviors and the customer should not have to pay for that

Under the EU AI Act, AI placed in high-risk settings — including as a safety component in regulated operations A chemical plant cannot satisfy a safety case by reporting that safety happened; it satisfies it by engineering

This voice seems loudest in the safety field. In a recent article from Energy Safety Canada, The National Safety Association’s for Canada’s Oil and Process safety management, functional safety, and occupational safety are becoming more risk-based and What some are suggesting is something similar to TQM for safety – Total Safety Management (TSM). (Safety 2) to transform our approaches from safety management to actually managing safety.

shares his insights on how organizational structure, communication, and habitual practices advance safety culture from his recent book: Organizing for Safety – How structure creates culture. video, Hopkins outlines how organizational structures contribute (negatively and positively) to overall safety This video was shown during of the Oil and Gas Denmark – Task Force Zero 2019 safety conference.