7. Responsibility

[QUESTIONS] Who is responsible for the consequences of the development of AI? How should we define progressive or conservative development of AI? How should we react when faced with AI’s predictable consequences on the labour market? Is it acceptable to entrust a vulnerable person to the care of AI (for example, a "robot nanny”)? Can an artificial agent, such as Tay, Microsoft’s “racist” chatbot, be morally culpable and responsible? [PRINCIPLES] ​The various players in the development of AI should assume their responsibility by working against the risks arising from their technological innovations.
Principle: The Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence, Nov 3, 2017

Published by University of Montreal, Forum on the Socially Responsible Development of AI

Related Principles

· (1) Human centric

Utilization of AI should not infringe upon fundamental human rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and international norms. AI should be developed and utilized and implemented in society to expand the abilities of people and to pursue the diverse concepts of happiness of diverse people. In the AI utilized society, it is desirable that we implement appropriate mechanisms of literacy education and promotion of proper uses, so as not to over depend on AI or not to ill manipulate human decisions by exploiting AI. AI can expand human abilities and creativity not only by replacing part of human task but also by assisting human as an advanced instrument. When using AI, people must judge and decide for themselves how to use AI. Appropriate stakeholders involved in the development, provision, and utilization of AI should be responsible for the result of AI utilization, depending on the nature of the issue. In order to avoid creating digital divide and allow all people to reap the benefit of AI regardless of their digital expertise, each stakeholder should take into consideration to user friendliness of the system in the process of AI deployment.

Published by Cabinet Office, Government of Japan in Social Principles of Human-centric AI (Draft), Dec 27, 2018

Preamble

Two of Deutsche Telekom’s most important goals are to keep being a trusted companion and to enhance customer experience. We see it as our responsibility as one of the leading ICT companies in Europe to foster the development of “intelligent technologies”. At least either important, these technologies, such as AI, must follow predefined ethical rules. To define a corresponding ethical framework, firstly it needs a common understanding on what AI means. Today there are several definitions of AI, like the very first one of John McCarthy (1956) “Every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it.” In line with other companies and main players in the field of AI we at DT think of AI as the imitation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. These processes include learning, reasoning, and self correction. After several decades, Artificial Intelligence has become one of the most intriguing topics of today – and the future. It has become widespread available and is discussed not only among experts but also more and more in public, politics, etc.. AI has started to influence business (new market opportunities as well as efficiency driver), society (e.g. broad discussion about autonomously driving vehicles or AI as “job machine” vs. “job killer”) and the life of each individual (AI already found its way into the living room, e.g. with voice steered digital assistants like smart speakers). But the use of AI and its possibilities confront us not only with fast developing technologies but as well as with the fact that our ethical roadmaps, based on human human interactions, might not be sufficient in this new era of technological influence. New questions arise and situations that were not imaginable in our daily lives then emerge. We as DT also want to develop and make use of AI. This technology can bring many benefits based on improving customer experience or simplicity. We are already in the game, e.g having several AI related projects running. With these comes an increase of digital responsibility on our side to ensure that AI is utilized in an ethical manner. So we as DT have to give answers to our customers, shareholders and stakeholders. The following Digital Ethics guidelines state how we as Deutsche Telekom want to build the future with AI. For us, technology serves one main purpose: It must act supportingly. Thus AI is in any case supposed to extend and complement human abilities rather than lessen them. Remark: The impact of AI on DT jobs – may it as a benefit and for value creation in the sense of job enrichment and enlargement or may it in the sense of efficiency is however not focus of these guidelines.

Published by Deutsche Telekom in Deutsche Telekom’s guidelines for artificial intelligence, May 11, 2018

· 1. THE MAIN PRIORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AI TECHNOLOGIES IS PROTECTING THE INTERESTS AND RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS COLLECTIVELY AND AS INDIVIDUALS

1.1. Human centered and humanistic approach. In the development of AI technologies, the rights and freedoms of the individual should be given the greatest value. AI technologies developed by AI Actors should promote or not hinder the realization of humans’ capabilities to achieve harmony in social, economic and spiritual spheres, as well as in the highest self fulfillment of human beings. They should take into account key values such as the preservation and development of human cognitive abilities and creative potential; the preservation of moral, spiritual and cultural values; the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and identity; and the preservation of traditions and the foundations of nations, peoples and ethnic and social groups. A human centered and humanistic approach is the basic ethical principle and central criterion for assessing the ethical behavior of AI Actors, which are listed in the section 2 of this Code. 1.2. Respect for human autonomy and freedom of will. AI Actors should take all necessary measures to preserve the autonomy and free will of a human‘s decision making ability, the right to choose, and, in general, the intellectual abilities of a human as an intrinsic value and a system forming factor of modern civilization. AI Actors should, during AIS creation, assess the possible negative consequences for the development of human cognitive abilities and prevent the development of AIS that purposefully cause such consequences. 1.3. Compliance with the law. AI Actors must know and comply with the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in all areas of their activities and at all stages of the creation, development and use of AI technologies, including in matters of the legal responsibility of AI Actors. 1.4. Non discrimination. To ensure fairness and non discrimination, AI Actors should take measures to verify that the algorithms, datasets and processing methods for machine learning that are used to group and or classify data concerning individuals or groups do not intentionally discriminate. AI Actors are encouraged to create and apply methods and software solutions that identify and prevent discrimination based on race, nationality, gender, political views, religious beliefs, age, social and economic status, or information about private life. (At the same time, cannot be considered as discrimination rules, which are explicitly declared by an AI Actor for functioning or the application of AIS for the different groups of users, with such factors taken into account for segmentation) 1.5. Assessment of risks and humanitarian impact. AI Actors are encouraged to assess the potential risks of using an AIS, including the social consequences for individuals, society and the state, as well as the humanitarian impact of the AIS on human rights and freedoms at different stages, including during the formation and use of datasets. AI Actors should also carry out long term monitoring of the manifestations of such risks and take into account the complexity of the behavior of AIS during risk assessment, including the relationship and the interdependence of processes in the AIS’s life cycle. For critical applications of the AIS, in special cases, it is encouraged that a risk assessment be conducted through the involvement of a neutral third party or authorized official body when to do so would not harm the performance and information security of the AIS and would ensure the protection of the intellectual property and trade secrets of the developer.

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

3. Human centric AI

AI should be at the service of society and generate tangible benefits for people. AI systems should always stay under human control and be driven by value based considerations. Telefónica is conscious of the fact that the implementation of AI in our products and services should in no way lead to a negative impact on human rights or the achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. We are concerned about the potential use of AI for the creation or spreading of fake news, technology addiction, and the potential reinforcement of societal bias in algorithms in general. We commit to working towards avoiding these tendencies to the extent it is within our realm of control.

Published by Telefónica in AI Principles of Telefónica, Oct 30, 2018

4 Foster responsibility and accountability

Humans require clear, transparent specification of the tasks that systems can perform and the conditions under which they can achieve the desired level of performance; this helps to ensure that health care providers can use an AI technology responsibly. Although AI technologies perform specific tasks, it is the responsibility of human stakeholders to ensure that they can perform those tasks and that they are used under appropriate conditions. Responsibility can be assured by application of “human warranty”, which implies evaluation by patients and clinicians in the development and deployment of AI technologies. In human warranty, regulatory principles are applied upstream and downstream of the algorithm by establishing points of human supervision. The critical points of supervision are identified by discussions among professionals, patients and designers. The goal is to ensure that the algorithm remains on a machine learning development path that is medically effective, can be interrogated and is ethically responsible; it involves active partnership with patients and the public, such as meaningful public consultation and debate (101). Ultimately, such work should be validated by regulatory agencies or other supervisory authorities. When something does go wrong in application of an AI technology, there should be accountability. Appropriate mechanisms should be adopted to ensure questioning by and redress for individuals and groups adversely affected by algorithmically informed decisions. This should include access to prompt, effective remedies and redress from governments and companies that deploy AI technologies for health care. Redress should include compensation, rehabilitation, restitution, sanctions where necessary and a guarantee of non repetition. The use of AI technologies in medicine requires attribution of responsibility within complex systems in which responsibility is distributed among numerous agents. When medical decisions by AI technologies harm individuals, responsibility and accountability processes should clearly identify the relative roles of manufacturers and clinical users in the harm. This is an evolving challenge and remains unsettled in the laws of most countries. Institutions have not only legal liability but also a duty to assume responsibility for decisions made by the algorithms they use, even if it is not feasible to explain in detail how the algorithms produce their results. To avoid diffusion of responsibility, in which “everybody’s problem becomes nobody’s responsibility”, a faultless responsibility model (“collective responsibility”), in which all the agents involved in the development and deployment of an AI technology are held responsible, can encourage all actors to act with integrity and minimize harm. In such a model, the actual intentions of each agent (or actor) or their ability to control an outcome are not considered.

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