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

PRINCIPLES

Without diminishing the importance of other understandiare recognized as a starting point for the creation, application and use of artificial intelligence systems that will be worthy of human trust due to their reliability and responsibility towards humans:

Principle: ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, APPLICATION AND USE OF RELIABLE AND RESPONSIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Febrary, 2023

Published by Republic of Serbia

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

1. Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies should be designed, developed and used in respect of fundamental human rights and in accordance with the fairness principle, in particular by:

a. Considering individuals’ reasonable expectations by ensuring that the use of artificial intelligence systems remains consistent with their original purposes, and that the data are used in a way that is not incompatible with the original purpose of their collection, b. taking into consideration not only the impact that the use of artificial intelligence may have on the individual, but also the collective impact on groups and on society at large, c. ensuring that artificial intelligence systems are developed in a way that facilitates human development and does not obstruct or endanger it, thus recognizing the need for delineation and boundaries on certain uses,

Published by 40th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (ICDPPC) in Declaration On Ethics And Data Protection In Artifical Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

PREAMBLE

For the first time in human history, it is possible to create autonomous systems capable of performing complex tasks of which natural intelligence alone was thought capable: processing large quantities of information, calculating and predicting, learning and adapting responses to changing situations, and recognizing and classifying objects. Given the immaterial nature of these tasks, and by analogy with human intelligence, we designate these wide ranging systems under the general name of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence constitutes a major form of scientific and technological progress, which can generate considerable social benefits by improving living conditions and health, facilitating justice, creating wealth, bolstering public safety, and mitigating the impact of human activities on the environment and the climate. Intelligent machines are not limited to performing better calculations than human beings; they can also interact with sentient beings, keep them company and take care of them. However, the development of artificial intelligence does pose major ethical challenges and social risks. Indeed, intelligent machines can restrict the choices of individuals and groups, lower living standards, disrupt the organization of labor and the job market, influence politics, clash with fundamental rights, exacerbate social and economic inequalities, and affect ecosystems, the climate and the environment. Although scientific progress, and living in a society, always carry a risk, it is up to the citizens to determine the moral and political ends that give meaning to the risks encountered in an uncertain world. The lower the risks of its deployment, the greater the benefits of artificial intelligence will be. The first danger of artificial intelligence development consists in giving the illusion that we can master the future through calculations. Reducing society to a series of numbers and ruling it through algorithmic procedures is an old pipe dream that still drives human ambitions. But when it comes to human affairs, tomorrow rarely resembles today, and numbers cannot determine what has moral value, nor what is socially desirable. The principles of the current declaration are like points on a moral compass that will help guide the development of artificial intelligence towards morally and socially desirable ends. They also offer an ethical framework that promotes internationally recognized human rights in the fields affected by the rollout of artificial intelligence. Taken as a whole, the principles articulated lay the foundation for cultivating social trust towards artificially intelligent systems. The principles of the current declaration rest on the common belief that human beings seek to grow as social beings endowed with sensations, thoughts and feelings, and strive to fulfill their potential by freely exercising their emotional, moral and intellectual capacities. It is incumbent on the various public and private stakeholders and policymakers at the local, national and international level to ensure that the development and deployment of artificial intelligence are compatible with the protection of fundamental human capacities and goals, and contribute toward their fuller realization. With this goal in mind, one must interpret the proposed principles in a coherent manner, while taking into account the specific social, cultural, political and legal contexts of their application.

Published by University of Montreal in The Montreal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence, Dec 4, 2018

· 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)

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