4. Fairness Obligation.

Institutions must ensure that AI systems do not reflect unfair bias or make impermissible discriminatory decisions. [Explanatory Memorandum] The Fairness Obligation recognizes that all automated systems make decisions that reflect bias and discrimination, but such decisions should not be normatively unfair. There is no simple answer to the question as to what is unfair or impermissible. The evaluation often depends on context. But the Fairness Obligation makes clear that an assessment of objective outcomes alone is not sufficient to evaluate an AI system. Normative consequences must be assessed, including those that preexist or may be amplified by an AI system.
Principle: Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Related Principles

Contestability

When an AI system significantly impacts a person, community, group or environment, there should be a timely process to allow people to challenge the use or output of the AI system. This principle aims to ensure the provision of efficient, accessible mechanisms that allow people to challenge the use or output of an AI system, when that AI system significantly impacts a person, community, group or environment. The definition of the threshold for ‘significant impact’ will depend on the context, impact and application of the AI system in question. Knowing that redress for harm is possible, when things go wrong, is key to ensuring public trust in AI. Particular attention should be paid to vulnerable persons or groups. There should be sufficient access to the information available to the algorithm, and inferences drawn, to make contestability effective. In the case of decisions significantly affecting rights, there should be an effective system of oversight, which makes appropriate use of human judgment.

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

· Fairness and inclusion

AI systems should make the same recommendations for everyone with similar characteristics or qualifications. Employers should be required to test AI in the workplace on a regular basis to ensure that the system is built for purpose and is not harmfully influenced by bias of any kind — gender, race, sexual orientation, age, religion, income, family status and so on. AI should adopt inclusive design efforts to anticipate any potential deployment issues that could unintentionally exclude people. Workplace AI should be tested to ensure that it does not discriminate against vulnerable individuals or communities. Governments should review the impact of workplace, governmental and social AI on the opportunities and rights of poor people, Indigenous peoples and vulnerable members of society. In particular, the impact of overlapping AI systems toward profiling and marginalization should be identified and countered.

Published by Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Canada in Toward a G20 Framework for Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace, Jul 19, 2018

· Transparency

As AI increasingly changes the nature of work, workers, customers and vendors need to have information about how AI systems operate so that they can understand how decisions are made. Their involvement will help to identify potential bias, errors and unintended outcomes. Transparency is not necessarily nor only a question of open source code. While in some circumstances open source code will be helpful, what is more important are clear, complete and testable explanations of what the system is doing and why. Intellectual property, and sometimes even cyber security, is rewarded by a lack of transparency. Innovation generally, including in algorithms, is a value that should be encouraged. How, then, are these competing values to be balanced? One possibility is to require algorithmic verifiability rather than full algorithmic disclosure. Algorithmic verifiability would require companies to disclose not the actual code driving the algorithm but information allowing the effect of their algorithms to be independently assessed. In the absence of transparency regarding their algorithms’ purpose and actual effect, it is impossible to ensure that competition, labour, workplace safety, privacy and liability laws are being upheld. When accidents occur, the AI and related data will need to be transparent and accountable to an accident investigator, so that the process that led to the accident can be understood.

Published by Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Canada in Toward a G20 Framework for Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace, Jul 19, 2018

2. Right to Human Determination.

All individuals have the right to a final determination made by a person. [Explanatory Memorandum] The Right to a Human Determination reaffirms that individuals and not machines are responsible for automated decision making. In many instances, such as the operation of an autonomous vehicle, it would not be possible or practical to insert a human decision prior to an automated decision. But the aim remains to ensure accountability. Thus where an automated system fails, this principle should be understood as a requirement that a human assessment of the outcome be made.

Published by The Public Voice coalition, established by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

1 Protect autonomy

Adoption of AI can lead to situations in which decision making could be or is in fact transferred to machines. The principle of autonomy requires that any extension of machine autonomy not undermine human autonomy. In the context of health care, this means that humans should remain in full control of health care systems and medical decisions. AI systems should be designed demonstrably and systematically to conform to the principles and human rights with which they cohere; more specifically, they should be designed to assist humans, whether they be medical providers or patients, in making informed decisions. Human oversight may depend on the risks associated with an AI system but should always be meaningful and should thus include effective, transparent monitoring of human values and moral considerations. In practice, this could include deciding whether to use an AI system for a particular health care decision, to vary the level of human discretion and decision making and to develop AI technologies that can rank decisions when appropriate (as opposed to a single decision). These practicescan ensure a clinician can override decisions made by AI systems and that machine autonomy can be restricted and made “intrinsically reversible”. Respect for autonomy also entails the related duties to protect privacy and confidentiality and to ensure informed, valid consent by adopting appropriate legal frameworks for data protection. These should be fully supported and enforced by governments and respected by companies and their system designers, programmers, database creators and others. AI technologies should not be used for experimentation or manipulation of humans in a health care system without valid informed consent. The use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment plans should be incorporated into the process for informed and valid consent. Essential services should not be circumscribed or denied if an individual withholds consent and that additional incentives or inducements should not be offered by either a government or private parties to individuals who do provide consent. Data protection laws are one means of safeguarding individual rights and place obligations on data controllers and data processors. Such laws are necessary to protect privacy and the confidentiality of patient data and to establish patients’ control over their data. Construed broadly, data protection laws should also make it easy for people to access their own health data and to move or share those data as they like. Because machine learning requires large amounts of data – big data – these laws are increasingly important.

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