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

3. Identification Obligation.

The institution responsible for an AI system must be made known to the public. [Explanatory Memorandum] Identification Obligation. This principle seeks to address the identification asymmetry that arises in the interaction between individuals and AI systems. An AI system typically knows a great deal about an individual; the individual may not even know the operator of the AI system. The Identification Obligation establishes the foundation of AI accountability which is to make clear the identity of an AI system and the institution responsible.

Principle: Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence, Oct 23, 2018

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

Related Principles

1. Transparency and Explainability

Transparency refers to providing disclosure on when an AI system is being used and the involvement of an AI system in decision making, what kind of data it uses, and its purpose. By disclosing to individuals that AI is used in the system, individuals will become aware and can make an informed choice of whether to use the AIenabled system. Explainability is the ability to communicate the reasoning behind an AI system’s decision in a way that is understandable to a range of people, as it is not always clear how an AI system has arrived at a conclusion. This allows individuals to know the factors contributing to the AI system’s recommendation. In order to build public trust in AI, it is important to ensure that users are aware of the use of AI technology and understand how information from their interaction is used and how the AI system makes its decisions using the information provided. In line with the principle of transparency, deployers have a responsibility to clearly disclose the implementation of an AI system to stakeholders and foster general awareness of the AI system being used. With the increasing use of AI in many businesses and industries, the public is becoming more aware and interested in knowing when they are interacting with AI systems. Knowing when and how AI systems interact with users is also important in helping users discern the potential harm of interacting with an AI system that is not behaving as intended. In the past, AI algorithms have been found to discriminate against female job applicants and have failed to accurately recognise the faces of dark skinned women. It is important for users to be aware of the expected behaviour of the AI systems so they can make more informed decisions about the potential harm of interacting with AI systems. An example of transparency in an AI enabled ecommerce platform is informing users that their purchase history is used by the platform’s recommendation algorithm to identify similar products and display them on the users’ feeds. In line with the principle of explainability, developers and deployers designing, developing, and deploying AI systems should also strive to foster general understanding among users of how such systems work with simple and easy to understand explanations on how the AI system makes decisions. Understanding how AI systems work will help humans know when to trust its decisions. Explanations can have varying degrees of complexity, ranging from a simple text explanation of which factors more significantly affected the decisionmaking process to displaying a heatmap over the relevant text or on the area of an image that led to the system’s decision. For example, when an AI system is used to predict the likelihood of cardiac arrest in patients, explainability can be implemented by informing medical professionals of the most significant factors (e.g., age, blood pressure, etc.) that influenced the AI system’s decision so that they can subsequently make informed decisions on their own. Where “black box” models are deployed, rendering it difficult, if not impossible to provide explanations as to the workings of the AI system, outcome based explanations, with a focus on explaining the impact of decisionmaking or results flowing from the AI system may be relied on. Alternatively, deployers may also consider focusing on aspects relating to the quality of the AI system or preparing information that could build user confidence in the outcomes of an AI system’s processing behaviour. Some of these measures are: • Documenting the repeatability of results produced by the AI system. Some practices to demonstrate repeatability include conducting repeatability assessments to ensure deployments in live environments are repeatable and performing counterfactual fairness testing to ensure that the AI system’s decisions are the same in both the real world and in the counterfactual world. Repeatability refers to the ability of the system to consistently obtain the same results, given the same scenario. Repeatability often applies within the same environment, with the same data and the same computational conditions. • Ensuring traceability by building an audit trail to document the AI system development and decisionmaking process, implementing a black box recorder that captures all input data streams, or storing data appropriately to avoid degradation and alteration. • Facilitating auditability by keeping a comprehensive record of data provenance, procurement, preprocessing, lineage, storage, and security. Such information can also be centralised digitally in a process log to increase capacity to cater the presentation of results to different tiers of stakeholders with different interests and levels of expertise. Deployers should, however, note that auditability does not necessarily entail making certain confidential information about business models or intellectual property related to the AI system publicly available. A risk based approach can be taken towards identifying the subset of AI enabled features in the AI system for which implemented auditability is necessary to align with regulatory requirements or industry practices. • Using AI Model Cards, which are short documents accompanying trained machine learning models that disclose the context in which models are intended to be used, details of the performance evaluation procedures, and other relevant information. In cases where AI systems are procured directly from developers, deployers will have to work together with these developers to achieve transparency. More on this will be covered in later sections of the Guide.

Published by ASEAN in ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, 2021

Transparency Principle

The elements of the Transparency Principle can be found in several modern privacy laws, including the US Privacy Act, the EU Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the Council of Europe Convention 108. The aim of this principle is to enable independent accountability for automated decisions, with a primary emphasis on the right of the individual to know the basis of an adverse determination. In practical terms, it may not be possible for an individual to interpret the basis of a particular decision, but this does not obviate the need to ensure that such an explanation is possible.

Published by Center for AI and Digital Policy in Universal Guidelines for AI, Oct, 2018

Identification Obligation.

This principle seeks to address the identification asymmetry that arises in the interaction between individuals and AI systems. An AI system typically knows a great deal about an individual; the individual may not even know the operator of the AI system. The Identification Obligation establishes the foundation of AI accountability which is to make clear the identity of an AI system and the institution responsible.

Published by Center for AI and Digital Policy in Universal Guidelines for AI, Oct, 2018

· 3. HUMANS ARE ALWAYS RESPONSIBILE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF AI SYSTEMS APPLICATION

3.1. Supervision. AI Actors should ensure comprehensive human supervision of any AI system in the scope and order depending on the purpose of this AI system, i.a., for instance, record significant human decisions at all stages of the AI systems’ life cycle or make registration records of the operation of AI systems. AI Actors should also ensure transparency of AI systems use, the opportunity of cancellation by a person and (or) prevention of socially and legally significant decisions and actions of AI systems at any stage of their life cycle where it is reasonably applicable. 3.2. Responsibility. AI Actors should not allow the transfer of the right to responsible moral choice to AI systems or delegate the responsibility for the consequences of decision making to AI systems. A person (an individual or legal entity recognized as the subject of responsibility in accordance with the existing national legislation) must always be responsible for all consequences caused by the operation of AI systems. AI Actors are encouraged to take all measures to determine the responsibility of specific participants in the life cycle of AI systems, taking into account each participant’s role and the specifics of each stage.

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

1. Right to Transparency.

All individuals have the right to know the basis of an AI decision that concerns them. This includes access to the factors, the logic, and techniques that produced the outcome. [Explanatory Memorandum] The elements of the Transparency Principle can be found in several modern privacy laws, including the US Privacy Act, the EU Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the Council of Europe Convention 108. The aim of this principle is to enable independent accountability for automated decisions, with a primary emphasis on the right of the individual to know the basis of an adverse determination. In practical terms, it may not be possible for an individual to interpret the basis of a particular decision, but this does not obviate the need to ensure that such an explanation is possible.

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