Safe and Ethical AI (SEA) Platform Network · Linking Artificial Intelligence Principles (LAIP)

Be Responsible

Humans should be responsible for the negative impacts of the use of AI on biodiversity. AI models and algorithms related to Biodiversity Conservation should be as transparent, interpretable, and traceable as possible.

Principle: Principles on Artificial Intelligence for Biodiversity Conservation, August 25, 2022

Published by International Research Center for AI Ethics and Governance, Instituteof Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences，World Animal Protection Beijing Representative Office and other 7 entities

Related Principles

Human, social and environmental wellbeing

Throughout their lifecycle, AI systems should benefit individuals, society and the environment. This principle aims to clearly indicate from the outset that AI systems should be used for beneficial outcomes for individuals, society and the environment. AI system objectives should be clearly identified and justified. AI systems that help address areas of global concern should be encouraged, like the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Ideally, AI systems should be used to benefit all human beings, including future generations. AI systems designed for legitimate internal business purposes, like increasing efficiency, can have broader impacts on individual, social and environmental wellbeing. Those impacts, both positive and negative, should be accounted for throughout the AI system's lifecycle, including impacts outside the organisation.

Published by Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government in AI Ethics Principles, Nov 7, 2019

VI. Societal and environmental well being

For AI to be trustworthy, its impact on the environment and other sentient beings should be taken into account. Ideally, all humans, including future generations, should benefit from biodiversity and a habitable environment. Sustainability and ecological responsibility of AI systems should hence be encouraged. The same applies to AI solutions addressing areas of global concern, such as for instance the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, the impact of AI systems should be considered not only from an individual perspective, but also from the perspective of society as a whole. The use of AI systems should be given careful consideration particularly in situations relating to the democratic process, including opinion formation, political decision making or electoral contexts. Moreover, AI’s social impact should be considered. While AI systems can be used to enhance social skills, they can equally contribute to their deterioration.

Published by European Commission in Key requirements for trustworthy AI, Apr 8, 2019

VII. Accountability

Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes, both before and after their implementation. Auditability of AI systems is key in this regard, as the assessment of AI systems by internal and external auditors, and the availability of such evaluation reports, strongly contributes to the trustworthiness of the technology. External auditability should especially be ensured in applications affecting fundamental rights, including safety critical applications. Potential negative impacts of AI systems should be identified, assessed, documented and minimised. The use of impact assessments facilitates this process. These assessments should be proportionate to the extent of the risks that the AI systems pose. Trade offs between the requirements – which are often unavoidable – should be addressed in a rational and methodological manner, and should be accounted for. Finally, when unjust adverse impact occurs, accessible mechanisms should be foreseen that ensure adequate redress.

Published by European Commission in Key requirements for trustworthy AI, Apr 8, 2019

First principle: Human Centricity

The impact of AI enabled systems on humans must be assessed and considered, for a full range of effects both positive and negative across the entire system lifecycle. Whether they are MOD personnel, civilians, or targets of military action, humans interacting with or affected by AI enabled systems for Defence must be treated with respect. This means assessing and carefully considering the effects on humans of AI enabled systems, taking full account of human diversity, and ensuring those effects are as positive as possible. These effects should prioritise human life and wellbeing, as well as wider concerns for human kind such as environmental impacts, while taking account of military necessity. This applies across all uses of AI enabled systems, from the back office to the battlefield. The choice to develop and deploy AI systems is an ethical one, which must be taken with human implications in mind. It may be unethical to use certain systems where negative human impacts outweigh the benefits. Conversely, there may be a strong ethical case for the development and use of an AI system where it would be demonstrably beneficial or result in a more ethical outcome.

Published by The Ministry of Defence (MOD), United Kingdom in Ethical Principles for AI in Defence, Jun 15, 2022

· Proportionality and Do No Harm

25. It should be recognized that AI technologies do not necessarily, per se, ensure human and environmental and ecosystem flourishing. Furthermore, none of the processes related to the AI system life cycle shall exceed what is necessary to achieve legitimate aims or objectives and should be appropriate to the context. In the event of possible occurrence of any harm to human beings, human rights and fundamental freedoms, communities and society at large or the environment and ecosystems, the implementation of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of measures in order to preclude the occurrence of such harm should be ensured. 26. The choice to use AI systems and which AI method to use should be justified in the following ways: (a) the AI method chosen should be appropriate and proportional to achieve a given legitimate aim; (b) the AI method chosen should not infringe upon the foundational values captured in this document, in particular, its use must not violate or abuse human rights; and (c) the AI method should be appropriate to the context and should be based on rigorous scientific foundations. In scenarios where decisions are understood to have an impact that is irreversible or difficult to reverse or may involve life and death decisions, final human determination should apply. In particular, AI systems should not be used for social scoring or mass surveillance purposes.

Published by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Nov 24, 2021