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

5. Organizations and individuals that develop, deploy or operate AI systems must be responsible for their correct functioning, based on the principles described above

Principle: Recommendations for the treatment of personal data derived from the use of Artificial Intelligence, May 8, 2022

Published by National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI)

Related Principles

Accountability

Those responsible for the different phases of the AI system lifecycle should be identifiable and accountable for the outcomes of the AI systems, and human oversight of AI systems should be enabled. This principle aims to acknowledge the relevant organisations' and individuals’ responsibility for the outcomes of the AI systems that they design, develop, deploy and operate. The application of legal principles regarding accountability for AI systems is still developing. Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes. This includes both before and after their design, development, deployment and operation. The organisation and individual accountable for the decision should be identifiable as necessary. They must consider the appropriate level of human control or oversight for the particular AI system or use case. AI systems that have a significant impact on an individual's rights should be accountable to external review, this includes providing timely, accurate, and complete information for the purposes of independent oversight bodies.

Published by Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government in AI Ethics Principles, Nov 7, 2019

(Preamble)

We reaffirm that the use of AI must take place within the context of the existing DoD ethical framework. Building on this foundation, we propose the following principles, which are more specific to AI, and note that they apply to both combat and non combat systems. AI is a rapidly developing field, and no organization that currently develops or fields AI systems or espouses AI ethics principles can claim to have solved all the challenges embedded in the following principles. However, the Department should set the goal that its use of AI systems is:

Published by Defense Innovation Board (DIB), Department of Defense (DoD), United States in AI Ethics Principles for DoD, Oct 31, 2019

Second principle: Responsibility

Human responsibility for AI enabled systems must be clearly established, ensuring accountability for their outcomes, with clearly defined means by which human control is exercised throughout their lifecycles. The increased speed, complexity and automation of AI enabled systems may complicate our understanding of pre existing concepts of human control, responsibility and accountability. This may occur through the sorting and filtering of information presented to decision makers, the automation of previously human led processes, or processes by which AI enabled systems learn and evolve after their initial deployment. Nevertheless, as unique moral agents, humans must always be responsible for the ethical use of AI in Defence. Human responsibility for the use of AI enabled systems in Defence must be underpinned by a clear and consistent articulation of the means by which human control is exercised, and the nature and limitations of that control. While the level of human control will vary according to the context and capabilities of each AI enabled system, the ability to exercise human judgement over their outcomes is essential. Irrespective of the use case, Responsibility for each element of an AI enabled system, and an articulation of risk ownership, must be clearly defined from development, through deployment – including redeployment in new contexts – to decommissioning. This includes cases where systems are complex amalgamations of AI and non AI components, from multiple different suppliers. In this way, certain aspects of responsibility may reach beyond the team deploying a particular system, to other functions within the MOD, or beyond, to the third parties which build or integrate AI enabled systems for Defence. Collectively, these articulations of human control, responsibility and risk ownership must enable clear accountability for the outcomes of any AI enabled system in Defence. There must be no deployment or use without clear lines of responsibility and accountability, which should not be accepted by the designated duty holder unless they are satisfied that they can exercise control commensurate with the various risks.

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

4. Adopt a Human In Command Approach

An absolute precondition is that the development of AI must be responsible, safe and useful, where machines maintain the legal status of tools, and legal persons retain control over, and responsibility for, these machines at all times. This entails that AI systems should be designed and operated to comply with existing law, including privacy. Workers should have the right to access, manage and control the data AI systems generate, given said systems’ power to analyse and utilize that data (See principle 1 in “Top 10 principles for workers’ data privacy and protection”). Workers must also have the ‘right of explanation’ when AI systems are used in human resource procedures, such as recruitment, promotion or dismissal.

Published by UNI Global Union in Top 10 Principles For Ethical Artificial Intelligence, Dec 11, 2017

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