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

3. Artificial intelligence should not be used to diminish the data rights or privacy of individuals, families or communities.

Many of the hopes and the fears presently associated with AI are out of step with reality. The public and policymakers alike have a responsibility to understand the capabilities and limitations of this technology as it becomes an increasing part of our daily lives. This will require an awareness of when and where this technology is being deployed. Access to large quantities of data is one of the factors fuelling the current AI boom. The ways in which data is gathered and accessed need to be reconsidered, so that innovative companies, big and small, have fair and reasonable access to data, while citizens and consumers can also protect their privacy and personal agency in this changing world. Large companies which have control over vast quantities of data must be prevented from becoming overly powerful within this landscape. We call on the Government, with the Competition and Markets Authority, to review proactively the use and potential monopolisation of data by big technology companies operating in the UK.

Principle: AI Code, Apr 16, 2018

Published by House of Lords of United Kingdom, Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence

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

(h) Data protection and privacy

In an age of ubiquitous and massive collection of data through digital communication technologies, the right to protection of personal information and the right to respect for privacy are crucially challenged. Both physical AI robots as part of the Internet of Things, as well as AI softbots that operate via the World Wide Web must comply with data protection regulations and not collect and spread data or be run on sets of data for whose use and dissemination no informed consent has been given. ‘Autonomous’ systems must not interfere with the right to private life which comprises the right to be free from technologies that influence personal development and opinions, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings, and the right to be free from surveillance. Also in this regard, exact criteria should be defined and mechanisms established that ensure ethical development and ethically correct application of ‘autonomous’ systems. In light of concerns with regard to the implications of ‘autonomous’ systems on private life and privacy, consideration may be given to the ongoing debate about the introduction of two new rights: the right to meaningful human contact and the right to not be profiled, measured, analysed, coached or nudged.

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

· 2. Data Governance

The quality of the data sets used is paramount for the performance of the trained machine learning solutions. Even if the data is handled in a privacy preserving way, there are requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to have high quality AI. The datasets gathered inevitably contain biases, and one has to be able to prune these away before engaging in training. This may also be done in the training itself by requiring a symmetric behaviour over known issues in the training set. In addition, it must be ensured that the proper division of the data which is being set into training, as well as validation and testing of those sets, is carefully conducted in order to achieve a realistic picture of the performance of the AI system. It must particularly be ensured that anonymisation of the data is done in a way that enables the division of the data into sets to make sure that a certain data – for instance, images from same persons – do not end up into both the training and test sets, as this would disqualify the latter. The integrity of the data gathering has to be ensured. Feeding malicious data into the system may change the behaviour of the AI solutions. This is especially important for self learning systems. It is therefore advisable to always keep record of the data that is fed to the AI systems. When data is gathered from human behaviour, it may contain misjudgement, errors and mistakes. In large enough data sets these will be diluted since correct actions usually overrun the errors, yet a trace of thereof remains in the data. To trust the data gathering process, it must be ensured that such data will not be used against the individuals who provided the data. Instead, the findings of bias should be used to look forward and lead to better processes and instructions – improving our decisions making and strengthening our institutions.

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

5. Principle 5 — A IS Technology Misuse and Awareness of It

Issue: How can we extend the benefits and minimize the risks of A IS technology being misused? [Candidate Recommendations] Raise public awareness around the issues of potential A IS technology misuse in an informed and measured way by: 1. Providing ethics education and security awareness that sensitizes society to the potential risks of misuse of A IS (e.g., by providing “data privacy” warnings that some smart devices will collect their user’s personal data). 2. Delivering this education in scalable and effective ways, beginning with those having the greatest credibility and impact that also minimize generalized (e.g., non productive) fear about A IS (e.g., via credible research institutions or think tanks via social media such as Facebook or YouTube). 3. Educating government, lawmakers, and enforcement agencies surrounding these issues so citizens work collaboratively with them to avoid fear or confusion (e.g., in the same way police officers have given public safety lectures in schools for years; in the near future they could provide workshops on safe A IS).

Published by The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems in Ethically Aligned Design (v2): General Principles, (v1) Dec 13, 2016. (v2) Dec 12, 2017

6. Human Centricity and Well being

a. To aim for an equitable distribution of the benefits of data practices and avoid data practices that disproportionately disadvantage vulnerable groups. b. To aim to create the greatest possible benefit from the use of data and advanced modelling techniques. c. Engage in data practices that encourage the practice of virtues that contribute to human flourishing, human dignity and human autonomy. d. To give weight to the considered judgements of people or communities affected by data practices and to be aligned with the values and ethical principles of the people or communities affected. e. To make decisions that should cause no foreseeable harm to the individual, or should at least minimise such harm (in necessary circumstances, when weighed against the greater good). f. To allow users to maintain control over the data being used, the context such data is being used in and the ability to modify that use and context. g. To ensure that the overall well being of the user should be central to the AI system’s functionality.

Published by Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), Singapore in A compilation of existing AI ethical principles (Annex A), Jan 21, 2020