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.
Principle: A compilation of existing AI ethical principles (Annex A), Jan 21, 2020

Published by Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), Singapore

Related Principles

· 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

· 8. Robustness

Trustworthy AI requires that algorithms are secure, reliable as well as robust enough to deal with errors or inconsistencies during the design, development, execution, deployment and use phase of the AI system, and to adequately cope with erroneous outcomes. Reliability & Reproducibility. Trustworthiness requires that the accuracy of results can be confirmed and reproduced by independent evaluation. However, the complexity, non determinism and opacity of many AI systems, together with sensitivity to training model building conditions, can make it difficult to reproduce results. Currently there is an increased awareness within the AI research community that reproducibility is a critical requirement in the field. Reproducibility is essential to guarantee that results are consistent across different situations, computational frameworks and input data. The lack of reproducibility can lead to unintended discrimination in AI decisions. Accuracy. Accuracy pertains to an AI’s confidence and ability to correctly classify information into the correct categories, or its ability to make correct predictions, recommendations, or decisions based on data or models. An explicit and well formed development and evaluation process can support, mitigate and correct unintended risks. Resilience to Attack. AI systems, like all software systems, can include vulnerabilities that can allow them to be exploited by adversaries. Hacking is an important case of intentional harm, by which the system will purposefully follow a different course of action than its original purpose. If an AI system is attacked, the data as well as system behaviour can be changed, leading the system to make different decisions, or causing the system to shut down altogether. Systems and or data can also become corrupted, by malicious intention or by exposure to unexpected situations. Poor governance, by which it becomes possible to intentionally or unintentionally tamper with the data, or grant access to the algorithms to unauthorised entities, can also result in discrimination, erroneous decisions, or even physical harm. Fall back plan. A secure AI has safeguards that enable a fall back plan in case of problems with the AI system. In some cases this can mean that the AI system switches from statistical to rule based procedure, in other cases it means that the system asks for a human operator before continuing the action.

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

· Transparency and explainability

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Draft Text of The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Nov 24, 2021

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