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

Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations

The Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations set out key responsibilities associated with the outcome of automated decisions. The terms are intended to be interpreted both independently and jointly.

Principle: Universal Guidelines for AI, Oct, 2018

Published by Center for AI and Digital Policy

Related Principles

· Prepare Input Data:

1 Following the best practice of responsible data acquisition, handling, classification, and management must be a priority to ensure that results and outcomes align with the AI system’s set goals and objectives. Effective data quality soundness and procurement begin by ensuring the integrity of the data source and data accuracy in representing all observations to avoid the systematic disadvantaging of under represented or advantaging over represented groups. The quantity and quality of the data sets should be sufficient and accurate to serve the purpose of the system. The sample size of the data collected or procured has a significant impact on the accuracy and fairness of the outputs of a trained model. 2 Sensitive personal data attributes which are defined in the plan and design phase should not be included in the model data not to feed the existing bias on them. Also, the proxies of the sensitive features should be analyzed and not included in the input data. In some cases, this may not be possible due to the accuracy or objective of the AI system. In this case, the justification of the usage of the sensitive personal data attributes or their proxies should be provided. 3 Causality based feature selection should be ensured. Selected features should be verified with business owners and non technical teams. 4 Automated decision support technologies present major risks of bias and unwanted application at the deployment phase, so it is critical to set out mechanisms to prevent harmful and discriminatory results at this phase.

Published by SDAIA in AI Ethics Principles, Sept 14, 2022

Principle 6 – Transparency & Explainability

The transparency and explainability principle is crucial for building and maintaining trust in AI systems and technologies. AI systems must be built with a high level of clarity and explainability as well as features to track the stages of automated decision making, particularly those that may lead to detrimental effects on data subjects. It follows that data, algorithms, capabilities, processes, and purpose of the AI system need to be transparent and communicated as well as explainable to those who are directly and indirectly affected. The degree to which the system is traceable, auditable, transparent, and explainable is dependent on the context and purpose of the AI system and the severity of the outcomes that may result from the technology. AI systems and their designers should be able to justify how the rationale behind their design, practices, processes, algorithms, and decisions or behaviors are ethically permissible, nondiscriminatory, and nonharmful to the public.

Published by SDAIA in AI Ethics Principles, Sept 14, 2022

6. Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations.

Institutions must ensure the accuracy, reliability, and validity of decisions. [Explanatory Memorandum] The Accuracy, Reliability, and Validity Obligations set out key responsibilities associated with the outcome of automated decisions. The terms are intended to be interpreted both independently and jointly.

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

Second principle: Responsibility

Human responsibility for AI enabled systems must be clearly established, ensuring accountability for their outcomes, with clearly defined means by which human control is exercised throughout their lifecycles. The increased speed, complexity and automation of AI enabled systems may complicate our understanding of pre existing concepts of human control, responsibility and accountability. This may occur through the sorting and filtering of information presented to decision makers, the automation of previously human led processes, or processes by which AI enabled systems learn and evolve after their initial deployment. Nevertheless, as unique moral agents, humans must always be responsible for the ethical use of AI in Defence. Human responsibility for the use of AI enabled systems in Defence must be underpinned by a clear and consistent articulation of the means by which human control is exercised, and the nature and limitations of that control. While the level of human control will vary according to the context and capabilities of each AI enabled system, the ability to exercise human judgement over their outcomes is essential. Irrespective of the use case, Responsibility for each element of an AI enabled system, and an articulation of risk ownership, must be clearly defined from development, through deployment – including redeployment in new contexts – to decommissioning. This includes cases where systems are complex amalgamations of AI and non AI components, from multiple different suppliers. In this way, certain aspects of responsibility may reach beyond the team deploying a particular system, to other functions within the MOD, or beyond, to the third parties which build or integrate AI enabled systems for Defence. Collectively, these articulations of human control, responsibility and risk ownership must enable clear accountability for the outcomes of any AI enabled system in Defence. There must be no deployment or use without clear lines of responsibility and accountability, which should not be accepted by the designated duty holder unless they are satisfied that they can exercise control commensurate with the various risks.

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

· Transparency and explainability

37. The transparency and explainability of AI systems are often essential preconditions to ensure the respect, protection and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms and ethical principles. Transparency is necessary for relevant national and international liability regimes to work effectively. A lack of transparency could also undermine the possibility of effectively challenging decisions based on outcomes produced by AI systems and may thereby infringe the right to a fair trial and effective remedy, and limits the areas in which these systems can be legally used. 38. While efforts need to be made to increase transparency and explainability of AI systems, including those with extra territorial impact, throughout their life cycle to support democratic governance, the level of transparency and explainability should always be appropriate to the context and impact, as there may be a need to balance between transparency and explainability and other principles such as privacy, safety and security. People should be fully informed when a decision is informed by or is made on the basis of AI algorithms, including when it affects their safety or human rights, and in those circumstances should have the opportunity to request explanatory information from the relevant AI actor or public sector institutions. In addition, individuals should be able to access the reasons for a decision affecting their rights and freedoms, and have the option of making submissions to a designated staff member of the private sector company or public sector institution able to review and correct the decision. AI actors should inform users when a product or service is provided directly or with the assistance of AI systems in a proper and timely manner. 39. From a socio technical lens, greater transparency contributes to more peaceful, just, democratic and inclusive societies. It allows for public scrutiny that can decrease corruption and discrimination, and can also help detect and prevent negative impacts on human rights. Transparency aims at providing appropriate information to the respective addressees to enable their understanding and foster trust. Specific to the AI system, transparency can enable people to understand how each stage of an AI system is put in place, appropriate to the context and sensitivity of the AI system. It may also include insight into factors that affect a specific prediction or decision, and whether or not appropriate assurances (such as safety or fairness measures) are in place. In cases of serious threats of adverse human rights impacts, transparency may also require the sharing of code or datasets. 40. Explainability refers to making intelligible and providing insight into the outcome of AI systems. The explainability of AI systems also refers to the understandability of the input, output and the functioning of each algorithmic building block and how it contributes to the outcome of the systems. Thus, explainability is closely related to transparency, as outcomes and ub processes leading to outcomes should aim to be understandable and traceable, appropriate to the context. AI actors should commit to ensuring that the algorithms developed are explainable. In the case of AI applications that impact the end user in a way that is not temporary, easily reversible or otherwise low risk, it should be ensured that the meaningful explanation is provided with any decision that resulted in the action taken in order for the outcome to be considered transparent. 41. Transparency and explainability relate closely to adequate responsibility and accountability measures, as well as to the trustworthiness of AI systems.

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