2. Right to Human Determination.

All individuals have the right to a final determination made by a person. [Explanatory Memorandum] The Right to a Human Determination reaffirms that individuals and not machines are responsible for automated decision making. In many instances, such as the operation of an autonomous vehicle, it would not be possible or practical to insert a human decision prior to an automated decision. But the aim remains to ensure accountability. Thus where an automated system fails, this principle should be understood as a requirement that a human assessment of the outcome be made.
Principle: Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Related Principles

(a) Human dignity

The principle of human dignity, understood as the recognition of the inherent human state of being worthy of respect, must not be violated by ‘autonomous’ technologies. This means, for instance, that there are limits to determinations and classifications concerning persons, made on the basis of algorithms and ‘autonomous’ systems, especially when those affected by them are not informed about them. It also implies that there have to be (legal) limits to the ways in which people can be led to believe that they are dealing with human beings while in fact they are dealing with algorithms and smart machines. A relational conception of human dignity which is characterised by our social relations, requires that we are aware of whether and when we are interacting with a machine or another human being, and that we reserve the right to vest certain tasks to the human or the machine.

Published by European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, European Commission in Ethical principles and democratic prerequisites, Mar 9, 2018

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.

Published by University of Montreal in The Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence, Dec 4, 2018

9 RESPONSIBILITY PRINCIPLE

The development and use of AIS must not contribute to lessen the responsibility of human beings when decisions must be made. 1) Only human beings can be held responsible for decisions stemming from recommendations made by AIS, and the actions that proceed therefrom. 2) In all areas where a decision that affects a person’s life, quality of life, or reputation must be made, where time and circumstance permit, the final decision must be taken by a human being and that decision should be free and informed 3) The decision to kill must always be made by human beings, and responsibility for this decision must not be transferred to an AIS. 4) People who authorize AIS to commit a crime or an offence, or demonstrate negligence by allowing AIS to commit them, are responsible for this crime or offence. 5) When damage or harm has been inflicted by an AIS, and the AIS is proven to be reliable and to have been used as intended, it is not reasonable to place blame on the people involved in its development or use.

Published by University of Montreal in The Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence, Dec 4, 2018

1. Right to Transparency.

All individuals have the right to know the basis of an AI decision that concerns them. This includes access to the factors, the logic, and techniques that produced the outcome. [Explanatory Memorandum] The elements of the Transparency Principle can be found in several modern privacy laws, including the US Privacy Act, the EU Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the Council of Europe Convention 108. The aim of this principle is to enable independent accountability for automated decisions, with a primary emphasis on the right of the individual to know the basis of an adverse determination. In practical terms, it may not be possible for an individual to interpret the basis of a particular decision, but this does not obviate the need to ensure that such an explanation is possible.

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

1. Demand That AI Systems Are Transparent

A transparent artificial intelligence system is one in which it is possible to discover how, and why, the system made a decision, or in the case of a robot, acted the way it did. In particular: A. We stress that open source code is neither necessary nor sufficient for transparency – clarity cannot be obfuscated by complexity. B. For users, transparency is important because it builds trust in, and understanding of, the system, by providing a simple way for the user to understand what the system is doing and why. C. For validation and certification of an AI system, transparency is important because it exposes the system’s processes for scrutiny. D. If accidents occur, the AI will need to be transparent and accountable to an accident investigator, so the internal process that led to the accident can be understood. E. Workers must have the right to demand transparency in the decisions and outcomes of AI systems as well as the underlying algorithms (see principle 4 below). This includes the right to appeal decisions made by AI algorithms, and having it reviewed by a human being. F. Workers must be consulted on AI systems’ implementation, development and deployment. G. Following an accident, judges, juries, lawyers, and expert witnesses involved in the trial process require transparency and accountability to inform evidence and decision making. The principle of transparency is a prerequisite for ascertaining that the remaining principles are observed. See Principle 2 below for operational solution.

Published by UNI Global Union in Top 10 Principles For Ethical Artificial Intelligence, Dec 11, 2017