As AI increasingly changes the nature of work, workers, customers and vendors need to have information about how AI systems operate so that they can understand how decisions are made. Their involvement will help to identify potential bias, errors and unintended outcomes. Transparency is not necessarily nor only a question of open source code. While in some circumstances open source code will be helpful, what is more important are clear, complete and testable explanations of what the system is doing and why. Intellectual property, and sometimes even cyber security, is rewarded by a lack of transparency. Innovation generally, including in algorithms, is a value that should be encouraged. How, then, are these competing values to be balanced? One possibility is to require algorithmic verifiability rather than full algorithmic disclosure. Algorithmic verifiability would require companies to disclose not the actual code driving the algorithm but information allowing the effect of their algorithms to be independently assessed. In the absence of transparency regarding their algorithms’ purpose and actual effect, it is impossible to ensure that competition, labour, workplace safety, privacy and liability laws are being upheld. When accidents occur, the AI and related data will need to be transparent and accountable to an accident investigator, so that the process that led to the accident can be understood.
III. Privacy and Data Governance
Privacy and data protection must be guaranteed at all stages of the AI system’s life cycle. Digital records of human behaviour may allow AI systems to infer not only individuals’ preferences, age and gender but also their sexual orientation, religious or political views. To allow individuals to trust the data processing, it must be ensured that they have full control over their own data, and that data concerning them will not be used to harm or discriminate against them.
In addition to safeguarding privacy and personal data, requirements must be fulfilled to ensure high quality AI systems. The quality of the data sets used is paramount to the performance of AI systems. When data is gathered, it may reflect socially constructed biases, or contain inaccuracies, errors and mistakes. This needs to be addressed prior to training an AI system with any given data set. In addition, the integrity of the data must be ensured. Processes and data sets used must be tested and documented at each step such as planning, training, testing and deployment. This should also apply to AI systems that were not developed in house but acquired elsewhere. Finally, the access to data must be adequately governed and controlled.
Members of the JSAI will always be fair. Members of the JSAI will acknowledge that the use of AI may bring about additional inequality and discrimination in society which did not exist before, and will not be biased when developing AI. Members of the JSAI will, to the best of their ability, ensure that AI is developed as a resource that can be used by humanity in a fair and equal manner.
5 DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLE
AIS must meet intelligibility, justiﬁability, and accessibility criteria, and must be subjected to democratic scrutiny, debate, and control.
1) AIS processes that make decisions affecting a person’s life, quality of life, or reputation must be intelligible to their creators.
2) The decisions made by AIS affecting a person’s life, quality of life, or reputation should always be justiﬁable in a language that is understood by the people who use them or who are subjected to the consequences of their use. Justiﬁcation consists in making transparent the most important factors and parameters shaping the decision, and should take the same form as the justiﬁcation we would demand of a human making the same kind of decision.
3) The code for algorithms, whether public or private, must always be accessible to the relevant public authorities and stakeholders for veriﬁcation and control purposes.
4) The discovery of AIS operating errors, unexpected or undesirable effects, security breaches, and data leaks must imperatively be reported to the relevant public authorities, stakeholders, and those affected by the situation.
5) In accordance with the transparency requirement for public decisions, the code for decision making algorithms used by public authorities must be accessible to all, with the exception of algorithms that present a high risk of serious danger if misused.
6) For public AIS that have a signiﬁcant impact on the life of citizens, citizens should have the opportunity and skills to deliberate on the social parameters of these AIS, their objectives, and the limits of their use.
7) We must at all times be able to verify that AIS are doing what they were programmed for and what they are used for.
8) Any person using a service should know if a decision concerning them or affecting them was made by an AIS.
9) Any user of a service employing chatbots should be able to easily identify whether they are interacting with an AIS or a real person.
10) Artiﬁcial intelligence research should remain open and accessible to all.
4. Fairness Obligation.
Published by: The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence
Institutions must ensure that AI systems do not reflect unfair bias or make impermissible discriminatory decisions.
The Fairness Obligation recognizes that all automated systems make decisions that reflect bias and discrimination, but such decisions should not be normatively unfair. There is no simple answer to the question as to what is unfair or impermissible. The evaluation often depends on context. But the Fairness Obligation makes clear that an assessment of objective outcomes alone is not sufficient to evaluate an AI system. Normative consequences must be assessed, including those that preexist or may be amplified by an AI system.