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

Transparency

Review mechanisms will ensure citizens can question and challenge AI based outcomes Not only must the people of NSW have high levels of assurance that data is being used safely and in accordance with relevant legislation, they must also have access to an efficient and transparent review mechanism if there are questions about the use of data or AI informed outcomes. The development of AI solutions must be robust technically, legally and ethically. The community should be engaged on the objectives of AI projectsand insights into data use and methodology should be made publicly available unless there is an overriding public interest in not doing so. Projects should clearly demonstrate: a publicly available project objective and planned outcomes how the public can question and seek reviews of AI based decisions how the community can get insights into data use and methodology how the community will be informed of changes to an AI solution, including where existing technology is adapted for another purpose.

Principle: Mandatory Ethical Principles for the use of AI, 2024

Published by Government of New South Welsh, Australia

Related Principles

4. Human centricity

AI systems should respect human centred values and pursue benefits for human society, including human beings’ well being, nutrition, happiness, etc. It is key to ensure that people benefit from AI design, development, and deployment while being protected from potential harms. AI systems should be used to promote human well being and ensure benefit for all. Especially in instances where AI systems are used to make decisions about humans or aid them, it is imperative that these systems are designed with human benefit in mind and do not take advantage of vulnerable individuals. Human centricity should be incorporated throughout the AI system lifecycle, starting from the design to development and deployment. Actions must be taken to understand the way users interact with the AI system, how it is perceived, and if there are any negative outcomes arising from its outputs. One example of how deployers can do this is to test the AI system with a small group of internal users from varied backgrounds and demographics and incorporate their feedback in the AI system. AI systems should not be used for malicious purposes or to sway or deceive users into making decisions that are not beneficial to them or society. In this regard, developers and deployers (if developing or designing inhouse) should also ensure that dark patterns are avoided. Dark patterns refer to the use of certain design techniques to manipulate users and trick them into making decisions that they would otherwise not have made. An example of a dark pattern is employing the use of default options that do not consider the end user’s interests, such as for data sharing and tracking of the user’s other online activities. As an extension of human centricity as a principle, it is also important to ensure that the adoption of AI systems and their deployment at scale do not unduly disrupt labour and job prospects without proper assessment. Deployers are encouraged to take up impact assessments to ensure a systematic and stakeholder based review and consider how jobs can be redesigned to incorporate use of AI. Personal Data Protection Commission of Singapore’s (PDPC) Guide on Job Redesign in the Age of AI6 provides useful guidance to assist organisations in considering the impact of AI on its employees, and how work tasks can be redesigned to help employees embrace AI and move towards higher value tasks.

Published by ASEAN in ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, 2024

1. Transparent and explainable

There must be transparent use and responsible disclosure around data enhanced technology like AI, automated decisions and machine learning systems to ensure that people understand outcomes and can discuss, challenge and improve them. This includes being open about how and why these technologies are being used. When automation has been used to make or assist with decisions, a meaningful explanation should be made available. The explanation should be meaningful to the person requesting it. It should include relevant information about what the decision was, how the decision was made, and the consequences. Why it matters Transparent use is the key principle that helps enable other principles while building trust and confidence in government use of data enhanced technologies. It also encourages a dialogue between those using the technology and those who are affected by it. Meaningful explanations are important because they help people understand and potentially challenge outcomes. This helps ensure decisions are rendered fairly. It also helps identify and reverse adverse impacts on historically disadvantaged groups. For more on this, please consult the Transparency Guidelines.

Published by Government of Ontario, Canada in Principles for Ethical Use of AI [Beta], Sept 14, 2023

· Transparency and explainability

37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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. 41. 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 The Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Nov 24, 2021

3 Ensure transparency, explainability and intelligibility

AI should be intelligible or understandable to developers, users and regulators. Two broad approaches to ensuring intelligibility are improving the transparency and explainability of AI technology. Transparency requires that sufficient information (described below) be published or documented before the design and deployment of an AI technology. Such information should facilitate meaningful public consultation and debate on how the AI technology is designed and how it should be used. Such information should continue to be published and documented regularly and in a timely manner after an AI technology is approved for use. Transparency will improve system quality and protect patient and public health safety. For instance, system evaluators require transparency in order to identify errors, and government regulators rely on transparency to conduct proper, effective oversight. It must be possible to audit an AI technology, including if something goes wrong. Transparency should include accurate information about the assumptions and limitations of the technology, operating protocols, the properties of the data (including methods of data collection, processing and labelling) and development of the algorithmic model. AI technologies should be explainable to the extent possible and according to the capacity of those to whom the explanation is directed. Data protection laws already create specific obligations of explainability for automated decision making. Those who might request or require an explanation should be well informed, and the educational information must be tailored to each population, including, for example, marginalized populations. Many AI technologies are complex, and the complexity might frustrate both the explainer and the person receiving the explanation. There is a possible trade off between full explainability of an algorithm (at the cost of accuracy) and improved accuracy (at the cost of explainability). All algorithms should be tested rigorously in the settings in which the technology will be used in order to ensure that it meets standards of safety and efficacy. The examination and validation should include the assumptions, operational protocols, data properties and output decisions of the AI technology. Tests and evaluations should be regular, transparent and of sufficient breadth to cover differences in the performance of the algorithm according to race, ethnicity, gender, age and other relevant human characteristics. There should be robust, independent oversight of such tests and evaluation to ensure that they are conducted safely and effectively. Health care institutions, health systems and public health agencies should regularly publish information about how decisions have been made for adoption of an AI technology and how the technology will be evaluated periodically, its uses, its known limitations and the role of decision making, which can facilitate external auditing and oversight.

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