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

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.

Principle: Key requirements for trustworthy AI, Apr 8, 2019

Published by European Commission

Related Principles

· 4. Governance of AI Autonomy (Human oversight)

The correct approach to assuring properties such as safety, accuracy, adaptability, privacy, explicability, compliance with the rule of law and ethical conformity heavily depends on specific details of the AI system, its area of application, its level of impact on individuals, communities or society and its level of autonomy. The level of autonomy results from the use case and the degree of sophistication needed for a task. All other things being equal, the greater degree of autonomy that is given to an AI system, the more extensive testing and stricter governance is required. It must be ensured that AI systems continue to behave as intended when feedback signals become sparser. Depending on the area of application and or the level of impact on individuals, communities or society of the AI system, different levels or instances of governance (incl. human oversight) will be necessary. This is relevant for a large number of AI applications, and more particularly for the use of AI to suggest or take decisions concerning individuals or communities (algorithmic decision support). Good governance of AI autonomy in this respect includes for instance more or earlier human intervention depending on the level of societal impact of the AI system. This also includes the predicament that a user of an AI system, particularly in a work or decision making environment, is allowed to deviate from a path or decision chosen or recommended by the AI system.

Published by The European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence in Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, Dec 18, 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

· 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

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.

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