The machine learning community progresses (in part) by improving the "accuracy" of its systems. The EU AI Act explicitly refers to "accuracy" as part of its compliance measures for high-risk AI systems. Are we talking about the same thing? This work presents "accuracy" as a case-study for differing requirements of social worlds, the technological machine learning community and the legal community. While competition on accuracy contributes to technological development, machine learning scholars simultaneously recognize accuracy's shortcomings regarding the usefulness and effectiveness of machine learning systems. The legal counterpart embraces the vagueness of "accuracy," leaving interpretative flexibility for technological and societal changes. At the same time, accuracy is a core element of compliance within the EU AI Act. We elaborate on five main tensions, (a) nature of accuracy, (b) notion of performance, (c) scope of validity, (d) ends, and (e) statisticalness, to show that the two communities project disparate, and sometimes contradictory, expectations on accuracy. Both legal and technical communities lack precise understanding of "accuracy" beyond the contextual boundaries of their community. The resulting frictions, \eg, based on the empirical or normative understanding of accuracy, are symptoms of an unresolved (and unresolvable) debate on what accuracy is. We constructively use the frictions to recommend baselines and interventional studies in standardization, and demand for tools to extend the validity of accuracy measurements.

翻译：暂无翻译