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

Accountability:

We take ownership over the outcomes of our AI assisted tools. We will have processes and resources dedicated to receiving and responding to concerns about our AI and taking corrective action as appropriate. Accountability also entails testing for and anticipating potential harms, taking preemptive steps to mitigate such harms, and maintaining systems to respond to unanticipated harmful outcomes.

Principle: AI Ethics Principles, Feb 17, 2021

Published by Adobe

Related Principles

Responsibility:

We will approach designing and maintaining our AI technology with thoughtful evaluation and careful consideration of the impact and consequences of its deployment. We will ensure that we design for inclusiveness and assess the impact of potentially unfair, discriminatory, or inaccurate results, which might perpetuate harmful biases and stereotypes. We understand that special care must be taken to address bias if a product or service will have a significant impact on an individual's life, such as with employment, housing, credit, and health.

Published by Adobe in AI Ethics Principles, Feb 17, 2021

· Consensus Statement on AI Safety as a Global Public Good

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) systems’ capabilities are pushing humanity closer to a world where AI meets and surpasses human intelligence. Experts agree these AI systems are likely to be developed in the coming decades, with many of them believing they will arrive imminently. Loss of human control or malicious use of these AI systems could lead to catastrophic outcomes for all of humanity. Unfortunately, we have not yet developed the necessary science to control and safeguard the use of such advanced intelligence. The global nature of these risks from AI makes it necessary to recognize AI safety as a global public good, and work towards global governance of these risks. Collectively, we must prepare to avert the attendant catastrophic risks that could arrive at any time. Promising initial steps by the international community show cooperation on AI safety and governance is achievable despite geopolitical tensions. States and AI developers around the world committed to foundational principles to foster responsible development of AI and minimize risks at two intergovernmental summits. Thanks to these summits, states established AI Safety Institutes or similar institutions to advance testing, research and standards setting. These efforts are laudable and must continue. States must sufficiently resource AI Safety Institutes, continue to convene summits and support other global governance efforts. However, states must go further than they do today. As an initial step, states should develop authorities to detect and respond to AI incidents and catastrophic risks within their jurisdictions. These domestic authorities should coordinate to develop a global contingency plan to respond to severe AI incidents and catastrophic risks. In the longer term, states should develop an international governance regime to prevent the development of models that could pose global catastrophic risks. Deep and foundational research needs to be conducted to guarantee the safety of advanced AI systems. This work must begin swiftly to ensure they are developed and validated prior to the advent of advanced AIs. To enable this, we call on states to carve out AI safety as a cooperative area of academic and technical activity, distinct from broader geostrategic competition on development of AI capabilities. The international community should consider setting up three clear processes to prepare for a world where advanced AI systems pose catastrophic risks:

Published by IDAIS (International Dialogues on AI Safety) in IDAIS-Venice, Sept 5, 2024

· 1.1 Responsible Design and Deployment

We recognize our responsibility to integrate principles into the design of AI technologies, beyond compliance with existing laws. While the potential benefits to people and society are amazing, AI researchers, subject matter experts, and stakeholders should and do spend a great deal of time working to ensure the responsible design and deployment of AI systems. Highly autonomous AI systems must be designed consistent with international conventions that preserve human dignity, rights, and freedoms. As an industry, it is our responsibility to recognize potentials for use and misuse, the implications of such actions, and the responsibility and opportunity to take steps to avoid the reasonably predictable misuse of this technology by committing to ethics by design.

Published by Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) in AI Policy Principles, Oct 24, 2017

Fourth principle: Bias and Harm Mitigation

Those responsible for AI enabled systems must proactively mitigate the risk of unexpected or unintended biases or harms resulting from these systems, whether through their original rollout, or as they learn, change or are redeployed. AI enabled systems offer significant benefits for Defence. However, the use of AI enabled systems may also cause harms (beyond those already accepted under existing ethical and legal frameworks) to those using them or affected by their deployment. These may range from harms caused by a lack of suitable privacy for personal data, to unintended military harms due to system unpredictability. Such harms may change over time as systems learn and evolve, or as they are deployed beyond their original setting. Of particular concern is the risk of discriminatory outcomes resulting from algorithmic bias or skewed data sets. Defence must ensure that its AI enabled systems do not result in unfair bias or discrimination, in line with the MOD’s ongoing strategies for diversity and inclusion. A principle of bias and harm mitigation requires the assessment and, wherever possible, the mitigation of these biases or harms. This includes addressing bias in algorithmic decision making, carefully curating and managing datasets, setting safeguards and performance thresholds throughout the system lifecycle, managing environmental effects, and applying strict development criteria for new systems, or existing systems being applied to a new context.

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

6 Promote artificial intelligence that is responsive and sustainable

Responsiveness requires that designers, developers and users continuously, systematically and transparently examine an AI technology to determine whether it is responding adequately, appropriately and according to communicated expectations and requirements in the context in which it is used. Thus, identification of a health need requires that institutions and governments respond to that need and its context with appropriate technologies with the aim of achieving the public interest in health protection and promotion. When an AI technology is ineffective or engenders dissatisfaction, the duty to be responsive requires an institutional process to resolve the problem, which may include terminating use of the technology. Responsiveness also requires that AI technologies be consistent with wider efforts to promote health systems and environmental and workplace sustainability. AI technologies should be introduced only if they can be fully integrated and sustained in the health care system. Too often, especially in under resourced health systems, new technologies are not used or are not repaired or updated, thereby wasting scare resources that could have been invested in proven interventions. Furthermore, AI systems should be designed to minimize their ecological footprints and increase energy efficiency, so that use of AI is consistent with society’s efforts to reduce the impact of human beings on the earth’s environment, ecosystems and climate. Sustainability also requires governments and companies to address anticipated disruptions to the workplace, including training of health care workers to adapt to use of AI and potential job losses due to the use of automated systems for routine health care functions and administrative tasks.

Published by World Health Organization (WHO) in Key ethical principles for use of artificial intelligence for health, Jun 28, 2021