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

V. Diversity, non discrimination and fairness

Data sets used by AI systems (both for training and operation) may suffer from the inclusion of inadvertent historic bias, incompleteness and bad governance models. The continuation of such biases could lead to (in)direct discrimination. Harm can also result from the intentional exploitation of (consumer) biases or by engaging in unfair competition. Moreover, the way in which AI systems are developed (e.g. the way in which the programming code of an algorithm is written) may also suffer from bias. Such concerns should be tackled from the beginning of the system’ development. Establishing diverse design teams and setting up mechanisms ensuring participation, in particular of citizens, in AI development can also help to address these concerns. It is advisable to consult stakeholders who may directly or indirectly be affected by the system throughout its life cycle. AI systems should consider the whole range of human abilities, skills and requirements, and ensure accessibility through a universal design approach to strive to achieve equal access for persons with disabilities.

Principle: Key requirements for trustworthy AI, Apr 8, 2019

Published by European Commission

Related Principles

1. Transparency and Explainability

Transparency refers to providing disclosure on when an AI system is being used and the involvement of an AI system in decision making, what kind of data it uses, and its purpose. By disclosing to individuals that AI is used in the system, individuals will become aware and can make an informed choice of whether to use the AIenabled system. Explainability is the ability to communicate the reasoning behind an AI system’s decision in a way that is understandable to a range of people, as it is not always clear how an AI system has arrived at a conclusion. This allows individuals to know the factors contributing to the AI system’s recommendation. In order to build public trust in AI, it is important to ensure that users are aware of the use of AI technology and understand how information from their interaction is used and how the AI system makes its decisions using the information provided. In line with the principle of transparency, deployers have a responsibility to clearly disclose the implementation of an AI system to stakeholders and foster general awareness of the AI system being used. With the increasing use of AI in many businesses and industries, the public is becoming more aware and interested in knowing when they are interacting with AI systems. Knowing when and how AI systems interact with users is also important in helping users discern the potential harm of interacting with an AI system that is not behaving as intended. In the past, AI algorithms have been found to discriminate against female job applicants and have failed to accurately recognise the faces of dark skinned women. It is important for users to be aware of the expected behaviour of the AI systems so they can make more informed decisions about the potential harm of interacting with AI systems. An example of transparency in an AI enabled ecommerce platform is informing users that their purchase history is used by the platform’s recommendation algorithm to identify similar products and display them on the users’ feeds. In line with the principle of explainability, developers and deployers designing, developing, and deploying AI systems should also strive to foster general understanding among users of how such systems work with simple and easy to understand explanations on how the AI system makes decisions. Understanding how AI systems work will help humans know when to trust its decisions. Explanations can have varying degrees of complexity, ranging from a simple text explanation of which factors more significantly affected the decisionmaking process to displaying a heatmap over the relevant text or on the area of an image that led to the system’s decision. For example, when an AI system is used to predict the likelihood of cardiac arrest in patients, explainability can be implemented by informing medical professionals of the most significant factors (e.g., age, blood pressure, etc.) that influenced the AI system’s decision so that they can subsequently make informed decisions on their own. Where “black box” models are deployed, rendering it difficult, if not impossible to provide explanations as to the workings of the AI system, outcome based explanations, with a focus on explaining the impact of decisionmaking or results flowing from the AI system may be relied on. Alternatively, deployers may also consider focusing on aspects relating to the quality of the AI system or preparing information that could build user confidence in the outcomes of an AI system’s processing behaviour. Some of these measures are: • Documenting the repeatability of results produced by the AI system. Some practices to demonstrate repeatability include conducting repeatability assessments to ensure deployments in live environments are repeatable and performing counterfactual fairness testing to ensure that the AI system’s decisions are the same in both the real world and in the counterfactual world. Repeatability refers to the ability of the system to consistently obtain the same results, given the same scenario. Repeatability often applies within the same environment, with the same data and the same computational conditions. • Ensuring traceability by building an audit trail to document the AI system development and decisionmaking process, implementing a black box recorder that captures all input data streams, or storing data appropriately to avoid degradation and alteration. • Facilitating auditability by keeping a comprehensive record of data provenance, procurement, preprocessing, lineage, storage, and security. Such information can also be centralised digitally in a process log to increase capacity to cater the presentation of results to different tiers of stakeholders with different interests and levels of expertise. Deployers should, however, note that auditability does not necessarily entail making certain confidential information about business models or intellectual property related to the AI system publicly available. A risk based approach can be taken towards identifying the subset of AI enabled features in the AI system for which implemented auditability is necessary to align with regulatory requirements or industry practices. • Using AI Model Cards, which are short documents accompanying trained machine learning models that disclose the context in which models are intended to be used, details of the performance evaluation procedures, and other relevant information. In cases where AI systems are procured directly from developers, deployers will have to work together with these developers to achieve transparency. More on this will be covered in later sections of the Guide.

Published by ASEAN in ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, 2024

2. Fairness and Equity

Deployers should have safeguards in place to ensure that algorithmic decisions do not further exacerbate or amplify existing discriminatory or unjust impacts across different demographics and the design, development, and deployment of AI systems should not result in unfair biasness or discrimination. An example of such safeguards would include human interventions and checks on the algorithms and its outputs. Deployers of AI systems should conduct regular testing of such systems to confirm if there is bias and where bias is confirmed, make the necessary adjustments to rectify imbalances to ensure equity. With the rapid developments in the AI space, AI systems are increasingly used to aid decision making. For example, AI systems are currently used to screen resumes in job application processes, predict the credit worthiness of consumers and provide agronomic advice to farmers. If not properly managed, an AI system’s outputs used to make decisions with significant impact on individuals could perpetuate existing discriminatory or unjust impacts to specific demographics. To mitigate discrimination, it is important that the design, development, and deployment of AI systems align with fairness and equity principles. In addition, the datasets used to train the AI systems should be diverse and representative. Appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate potential biases during data collection and pre processing, training, and inference. For example, thetraining and test dataset for an AI system used in the education sector should be adequately representative of the student population by including students of different genders and ethnicities.

Published by ASEAN in ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, 2024

· 2. The Principle of Non maleficence: “Do no Harm”

AI systems should not harm human beings. By design, AI systems should protect the dignity, integrity, liberty, privacy, safety, and security of human beings in society and at work. AI systems should not threaten the democratic process, freedom of expression, freedoms of identify, or the possibility to refuse AI services. At the very least, AI systems should not be designed in a way that enhances existing harms or creates new harms for individuals. Harms can be physical, psychological, financial or social. AI specific harms may stem from the treatment of data on individuals (i.e. how it is collected, stored, used, etc.). To avoid harm, data collected and used for training of AI algorithms must be done in a way that avoids discrimination, manipulation, or negative profiling. Of equal importance, AI systems should be developed and implemented in a way that protects societies from ideological polarization and algorithmic determinism. Vulnerable demographics (e.g. children, minorities, disabled persons, elderly persons, or immigrants) should receive greater attention to the prevention of harm, given their unique status in society. Inclusion and diversity are key ingredients for the prevention of harm to ensure suitability of these systems across cultures, genders, ages, life choices, etc. Therefore not only should AI be designed with the impact on various vulnerable demographics in mind but the above mentioned demographics should have a place in the design process (rather through testing, validating, or other). Avoiding harm may also be viewed in terms of harm to the environment and animals, thus the development of environmentally friendly AI may be considered part of the principle of avoiding harm. The Earth’s resources can be valued in and of themselves or as a resource for humans to consume. In either case it is necessary to ensure that the research, development, and use of AI are done with an eye towards environmental awareness.

Published by The European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence in Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, Dec 18, 2018

· 2. NEED FOR CONSCIOUS RESPONSIBILITY WHEN CREATING AND USING AI

2.1. Risk based approach. The level of attention to ethical issues in AI and the nature of the relevant actions of AI Actors should be proportional to the assessment of the level of risk posed by specific technologies and AISs and the interests of individuals and society. Risk level assessment must take into account both the known and possible risks; in this case, the level of probability of threats should be taken into account as well as their possible scale in the short and long term. In the field of AI development, making decisions that are significant to society and the state should be accompanied by scientifically verified and interdisciplinary forecasting of socio economic consequences and risks, as well as by the examination of possible changes in the value and cultural paradigm of the development of society, while taking into account national priorities. In pursuance of this Code, the development and use of an AIS risk assessment methodology is recommended. 2.2. Responsible attitude. AI Actors should have a responsible approach to the aspects of AIS that influence society and citizens at every stage of the AIS life cycle. These include privacy; the ethical, safe and responsible use of personal data; the nature, degree and amount of damage that may follow as a result of the use of the technology and AIS; and the selection and use of companion hardware and software. In this case, the responsibility of the AI Actors must correspond to the nature, degree and amount of damage that may occur as a result of the use of technologies and AIS, while taking into account the role of the AI Actor in the life cycle of AIS, as well as the degree of possible and real impact of a particular AI Actor on causing damage, as well as its size. 2.3. Precautions. When the activities of AI Actors can lead to morally unacceptable consequences for individuals and society, the occurrence of which the corresponding AI Actor can reasonably assume, measures should be taken to prevent or limit the occurrence of such consequences. To assess the moral acceptability of consequences and the possible measures to prevent them, Actors can use the provisions of this Code, including the mechanisms specified in Section 2. 2.4. No harm. AI Actors should not allow use of AI technologies for the purpose of causing harm to human life, the environment and or the health or property of citizens and legal entities. Any application of an AIS capable of purposefully causing harm to the environment, human life or health or the property of citizens and legal entities during any stage, including design, development, testing, implementation or operation, is unacceptable. 2.5. Identification of AI in communication with a human. AI Actors are encouraged to ensure that users are informed of their interactions with the AIS when it affects their rights and critical areas of their lives and to ensure that such interactions can be terminated at the request of the user. 2.6. Data security AI Actors must comply with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of personal data and secrets protected by law when using an AIS. Furthermore, they must ensure the protection and protection of personal data processed by an AIS or AI Actors in order to develop and improve the AIS by developing and implementing innovative methods of controlling unauthorized access by third parties to personal data and using high quality and representative datasets from reliable sources and obtained without breaking the law. 2.7. Information security. AI Actors should provide the maximum possible protection against unauthorized interference in the work of the AI by third parties by introducing adequate information security technologies, including the use of internal mechanisms for protecting the AIS from unauthorized interventions and informing users and developers about such interventions. They must also inform users about the rules regarding information security when using the AIS. 2.8. Voluntary certification and Code compliance. AI Actors can implement voluntary certification for the compliance of the developed AI technologies with the standards established by the legislation of the Russian Federation and this Code. AI Actors can create voluntary certification and AIS labeling systems that indicate that these systems have passed voluntary certification procedures and confirm quality standards. 2.9. Control of the recursive self improvement of AISs. AI Actors are encouraged to collaborate in the identification and verification of methods and forms of creating universal ("strong") AIS and the prevention of the possible threats that AIS carry. The use of "strong" AI technologies should be under the control of the state.

Published by AI Alliance Russia in Artificial Intelligence Code of Ethics, Oct 26, 2021

· 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