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

2. People oriented

The international community should work together to plan the path of aiintelligence development, to ensure that aI develops in line with human expectations and serves human well being, and that critical processes such as machine autonomous evolution and self replication require risk assessment and safety oversight.

Principle: Shanghai Initiative for the Safe Development of Artificial Intelligence, Aug 30, 2019

Published by Shanghai Advisory Committee of Experts on Artificial Intelligence Industry Security

Related Principles

I. Human agency and oversight

AI systems should support individuals in making better, more informed choices in accordance with their goals. They should act as enablers to a flourishing and equitable society by supporting human agency and fundamental rights, and not decrease, limit or misguide human autonomy. The overall wellbeing of the user should be central to the system's functionality. Human oversight helps ensuring that an AI system does not undermine human autonomy or causes other adverse effects. Depending on the specific AI based system and its application area, the appropriate degrees of control measures, including the adaptability, accuracy and explainability of AI based systems, should be ensured. Oversight may be achieved through governance mechanisms such as ensuring a human in the loop, human on the loop, or human in command approach. It must be ensured that public authorities have the ability to exercise their oversight powers in line with their mandates. All other things being equal, the less oversight a human can exercise over an AI system, the more extensive testing and stricter governance is required.

Published by European Commission in Key requirements for trustworthy AI, Apr 8, 2019

· Safety Assurance Framework

Frontier AI developers must demonstrate to domestic authorities that the systems they develop or deploy will not cross red lines such as those defined in the IDAIS Beijing consensus statement. To implement this, we need to build further scientific consensus on risks and red lines. Additionally, we should set early warning thresholds: levels of model capabilities indicating that a model may cross or come close to crossing a red line. This approach builds on and harmonizes the existing patchwork of voluntary commitments such as responsible scaling policies. Models whose capabilities fall below early warning thresholds require only limited testing and evaluation, while more rigorous assurance mechanisms are needed for advanced AI systems exceeding these early warning thresholds. Although testing can alert us to risks, it only gives us a coarse grained understanding of a model. This is insufficient to provide safety guarantees for advanced AI systems. Developers should submit a high confidence safety case, i.e., a quantitative analysis that would convince the scientific community that their system design is safe, as is common practice in other safety critical engineering disciplines. Additionally, safety cases for sufficiently advanced systems should discuss organizational processes, including incentives and accountability structures, to favor safety. Pre deployment testing, evaluation and assurance are not sufficient. Advanced AI systems may increasingly engage in complex multi agent interactions with other AI systems and users. This interaction may lead to emergent risks that are difficult to predict. Post deployment monitoring is a critical part of an overall assurance framework, and could include continuous automated assessment of model behavior, centralized AI incident tracking databases, and reporting of the integration of AI in critical systems. Further assurance should be provided by automated run time checks, such as by verifying that the assumptions of a safety case continue to hold and safely shutting down a model if operated in an out of scope environment. States have a key role to play in ensuring safety assurance happens. States should mandate that developers conduct regular testing for concerning capabilities, with transparency provided through independent pre deployment audits by third parties granted sufficient access to developers’ staff, systems and records necessary to verify the developer’s claims. Additionally, for models exceeding early warning thresholds, states could require that independent experts approve a developer’s safety case prior to further training or deployment. Moreover, states can help institute ethical norms for AI engineering, for example by stipulating that engineers have an individual duty to protect the public interest similar to those held by medical or legal professionals. Finally, states will also need to build governance processes to ensure adequate post deployment monitoring. While there may be variations in Safety Assurance Frameworks required nationally, states should collaborate to achieve mutual recognition and commensurability of frameworks.

Published by IDAIS (International Dialogues on AI Safety) in IDAIS-Venice, Sept 5, 2024

4. Accountable and responsible

Organizations and individuals developing, deploying or operating AI systems should be held accountable for their ongoing proper functioning in line with the other principles. Human accountability and decision making over AI systems within an organization needs to be clearly identified, appropriately distributed and actively maintained throughout the system’s life cycle. An organizational culture around shared ethical responsibilities over the system must also be promoted. Where AI is used to make or assist with decisions, a public and accessible process for redress should be designed, developed, and implemented with input from a multidisciplinary team and affected stakeholders. Algorithmic systems should also be regularly peer reviewed or audited to ensure that unwanted biases have not inadvertently crept in over time. Why it matters Identifying and appropriately distributing accountability within an organization helps ensure continuous human oversight over the system is properly maintained. In addition to clear roles related to accountability, it is also important to promote an organizational culture around shared ethical responsibilities. This helps prevent gaps and avoids the situation where ethical considerations are always viewed as someone else’s responsibility. While our existing legal framework includes numerous traditional processes of redress related to governmental decision making, AI systems can present unique challenges to those traditional processes with their complexity. Input from a multidisciplinary team and affected stakeholders will help identify those issues in advance and design appropriate mechanisms to mitigate them. Regular peer review of AI systems is also important. Issues around bias may not be evident when AI systems are initially designed or developed, so it's important to consider this requirement throughout the lifecycle of the system.

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

· 1. THE KEY PRIORITY OF AI TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT IS PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS AND RIGHTS OF HUMAN BEINGS AT LARGE AND EVERY PERSON IN PARTICULAR

1.1. Human centered and humanistic approach. Human rights and freedoms and the human as such must be treated as the greatest value in the process of AI technologies development. AI technologies developed by Actors should promote or not hinder the full realization of all human capabilities to achieve harmony in social, economic and spiritual spheres, as well as the highest self fulfillment of human beings. AI Actors should regard core 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, 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 listed in Section 2 of this Code. 1.2. Recognition of autonomy and free will of human. AI Actors should take necessary measures to preserve the autonomy and free will of human in the process of decision making, their right to choose, as well as preserve human intellectual abilities in general as an intrinsic value and a system forming factor of modern civilization. AI Actors should forecast possible negative consequences for the development of human cognitive abilities at the earliest stages of AI systems creation and refrain from the development of AI systems that purposefully cause such consequences. 1.3. Compliance with the law. AI Actors must know and comply with the provisions of the national legislation in all areas of their activities and at all stages of creation, integration and use of AI technologies, i.a. in the sphere of 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 that concern individuals or groups do not entail intentional discrimination. AI Actors are encouraged to create and apply methods and software solutions that identify and prevent discrimination manifestations based on race, nationality, gender, political views, religious beliefs, age, social and economic status, or information about private life (at the same time, the rules of functioning or application of AI systems for different groups of users wherein such factors are taken into account for user segmentation, which are explicitly declared by an AI Actor, cannot be defined as discrimination). 1.5. Assessment of risks and humanitarian impact. AI Actors are encouraged to: • assess the potential risks of the use of an AI system, including social consequences for individuals, society and the state, as well as the humanitarian impact of an AI system on human rights and freedoms at different stages of its life cycle, i.a. during the formation and use of datasets; • monitor the manifestations of such risks in the long term; • take into account the complexity of AI systems’ actions, including interconnection and interdependence of processes in the AI systems’ life cycle, during risk assessment. In special cases concerning critical applications of an AI system it is encouraged that risk assessment be conducted with the involvement of a neutral third party or authorized official body given that it does not harm the performance and information security of the AI system and ensures the protection of the intellectual property and trade secrets of the developer.

Published by AI Alliance Russia in AI Ethics Code (revised version), Oct 21, 2022 (unconfirmed)

Plan and Design:

1 This step is crucial to design or procure an AI System in an accountable and responsible manner. The ethical responsibility and liability for the outcomes of the AI system should be attributable to stakeholders who are responsible for certain actions in the AI System Lifecycle. It is essential to set a robust governance structure that defines the authorization and responsibility areas of the internal and external stakeholders without leaving any areas of uncertainty to achieve this principle. The design approach of the AI system should respect human rights, and fundamental freedoms as well as the national laws and cultural values of the kingdom. 2 Organizations can put in place additional instruments such as impact assessments, risk mitigation frameworks, audit and due diligence mechanisms, redress, and disaster recovery plans. 3 It is essential to build and design a human controlled AI system where decisions on the processes and functionality of the technology are monitored and executed, and are susceptible to intervention from authorized users. Human governance and oversight establish the necessary control and levels of autonomy through set mechanisms.

Published by SDAIA in AI Ethics Principles, Sept 14, 2022