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

3 Transparency and Explainability

Organisations that develop, deploy or use AI systems and any national laws that regulate such use shall ensure that, to the extent reasonable given the circumstances and state of the art of the technology, such use is transparent and that the decision outcomes of the AI system are explainable.

Principle: The Eight Principles of Responsible AI, May 23, 2019

Published by International Technology Law Association (ITechLaw)

Related Principles

IV. Transparency

The traceability of AI systems should be ensured; it is important to log and document both the decisions made by the systems, as well as the entire process (including a description of data gathering and labelling, and a description of the algorithm used) that yielded the decisions. Linked to this, explainability of the algorithmic decision making process, adapted to the persons involved, should be provided to the extent possible. Ongoing research to develop explainability mechanisms should be pursued. In addition, explanations of the degree to which an AI system influences and shapes the organisational decision making process, design choices of the system, as well as the rationale for deploying it, should be available (hence ensuring not just data and system transparency, but also business model transparency). Finally, it is important to adequately communicate the AI system’s capabilities and limitations to the different stakeholders involved in a manner appropriate to the use case at hand. Moreover, AI systems should be identifiable as such, ensuring that users know they are interacting with an AI system and which persons are responsible for it.

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

· 2. NEED FOR CONSCIOUS RESPONSIBILITY WHEN CREATING AND USING AI

2.1. Risk based approach. The level of attention to ethical issues in AI and the nature of the relevant actions of AI Actors should be proportional to the assessment of the level of risk posed by specific technologies and AISs and the interests of individuals and society. Risk level assessment must take into account both the known and possible risks; in this case, the level of probability of threats should be taken into account as well as their possible scale in the short and long term. In the field of AI development, making decisions that are significant to society and the state should be accompanied by scientifically verified and interdisciplinary forecasting of socio economic consequences and risks, as well as by the examination of possible changes in the value and cultural paradigm of the development of society, while taking into account national priorities. In pursuance of this Code, the development and use of an AIS risk assessment methodology is recommended. 2.2. Responsible attitude. AI Actors should have a responsible approach to the aspects of AIS that influence society and citizens at every stage of the AIS life cycle. These include privacy; the ethical, safe and responsible use of personal data; the nature, degree and amount of damage that may follow as a result of the use of the technology and AIS; and the selection and use of companion hardware and software. In this case, the responsibility of the AI Actors must correspond to the nature, degree and amount of damage that may occur as a result of the use of technologies and AIS, while taking into account the role of the AI Actor in the life cycle of AIS, as well as the degree of possible and real impact of a particular AI Actor on causing damage, as well as its size. 2.3. Precautions. When the activities of AI Actors can lead to morally unacceptable consequences for individuals and society, the occurrence of which the corresponding AI Actor can reasonably assume, measures should be taken to prevent or limit the occurrence of such consequences. To assess the moral acceptability of consequences and the possible measures to prevent them, Actors can use the provisions of this Code, including the mechanisms specified in Section 2. 2.4. No harm. AI Actors should not allow use of AI technologies for the purpose of causing harm to human life, the environment and or the health or property of citizens and legal entities. Any application of an AIS capable of purposefully causing harm to the environment, human life or health or the property of citizens and legal entities during any stage, including design, development, testing, implementation or operation, is unacceptable. 2.5. Identification of AI in communication with a human. AI Actors are encouraged to ensure that users are informed of their interactions with the AIS when it affects their rights and critical areas of their lives and to ensure that such interactions can be terminated at the request of the user. 2.6. Data security AI Actors must comply with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of personal data and secrets protected by law when using an AIS. Furthermore, they must ensure the protection and protection of personal data processed by an AIS or AI Actors in order to develop and improve the AIS by developing and implementing innovative methods of controlling unauthorized access by third parties to personal data and using high quality and representative datasets from reliable sources and obtained without breaking the law. 2.7. Information security. AI Actors should provide the maximum possible protection against unauthorized interference in the work of the AI by third parties by introducing adequate information security technologies, including the use of internal mechanisms for protecting the AIS from unauthorized interventions and informing users and developers about such interventions. They must also inform users about the rules regarding information security when using the AIS. 2.8. Voluntary certification and Code compliance. AI Actors can implement voluntary certification for the compliance of the developed AI technologies with the standards established by the legislation of the Russian Federation and this Code. AI Actors can create voluntary certification and AIS labeling systems that indicate that these systems have passed voluntary certification procedures and confirm quality standards. 2.9. Control of the recursive self improvement of AISs. AI Actors are encouraged to collaborate in the identification and verification of methods and forms of creating universal ("strong") AIS and the prevention of the possible threats that AIS carry. The use of "strong" AI technologies should be under the control of the state.

Published by AI Alliance Russia in Artificial Intelligence Code of Ethics, Oct 26, 2021

· 2. RESPONSIBILITY MUST BE FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED WHEN CREATING AND USING AI

2.1. Risk based approach. The degree of attention paid to ethical AI issues and the nature of the relevant actions of AI Actors should be proportional to the assessment of the level of risk posed by specific AI technologies and systems for the interests of individuals and society. Risk level assessment shall take into account both known and possible risks, whereby the probability level of threats, as well as their possible scale in the short and long term shall be considered. Making decisions in the field of AI use that significantly affect society and the state should be accompanied by a scientifically verified, interdisciplinary forecast of socio economic consequences and risks and examination of possible changes in the paradigm of value and cultural development of the society. Development and use of an AI systems risk assessment methodology are encouraged in pursuance of this Code. 2.2. Responsible attitude. AI Actors should responsibly treat: • issues related to the influence of AI systems on society and citizens at every stage of the AI systems’ life cycle, i.a. on privacy, ethical, safe and responsible use of personal data; • the nature, degree and extent of damage that may result from the use of AI technologies and systems; • the selection and use of hardware and software utilized in different life cycles of AI systems. At the same time, the responsibility of AI Actors should correspond with the nature, degree and extent of damage that may occur as a result of the use of AI technologies and systems. The role in the life cycle of the AI system, as well as the degree of possible and real influence of a particular AI Actor on causing damage and its extent, should also be taken into account. 2.3. Precautions. When the activities of AI Actors can lead to morally unacceptable consequences for individuals and society, which can be reasonably predicted by the relevant AI Actor, the latter, should take measures to prohibit or limit the occurrence of such consequences. AI Actors shall use the provisions of this Code, including the mechanisms specified in Section 2, to assess the moral unacceptability of such consequences and discuss possible preventive measures. 2.4. No harm. AI Actors should not allow the use of AI technologies for the purpose of causing harm to human life and or health, the property of citizens and legal entities and the environment. Any use, including the design, development, testing, integration or operation of an AI system capable of purposefully causing harm to the environment, human life and or health, the property of citizens and legal entities, is prohibited. 2.5. Identification of AI in communication with a human. AI Actors are encouraged to ensure that users are duly informed of their interactions with AI systems when it affects human rights and critical areas of people’s lives and to ensure that such interaction can be terminated at the request of the user. 2.6. Data security. AI Actors must comply with the national legislation in the field of personal data and secrets protected by law when using AI systems; ensure the security and protection of personal data processed by AI systems or by AI Actors in order to develop and improve the AI systems; develop and integrate innovative methods to counter unauthorized access to personal data by third parties and use high quality and representative datasets obtained without breaking the law from reliable sources. 2.7. Information security. AI Actors should ensure the maximum possible protection from unauthorized interference of third parties in the operation of AI systems; integrate adequate information security technologies, i.a. use internal mechanisms designed to protect the AI system from unauthorized interventions and inform users and developers about such interventions; as well as promote the informing of users about the rules of information security during the use of AI systems. 2.8. Voluntary certification and Code compliance. AI Actors may implement voluntary certification systems to assess the compliance of developed AI technologies with the standards established by the national legislation and this Code. AI Actors may create voluntary certification and labeling systems for AI systems to indicate that these systems have passed voluntary certification procedures and confirm quality standards. 2.9. Control of the recursive self improvement of AI systems. AI Actors are encouraged to cooperate in identifying and verifying information about ways and forms of design of so called universal ("general") AI systems and prevention of possible threats they carry. The issues concerning the use of "general" AI technologies should be under the control of the state.

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

· 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

3 Ensure transparency, explainability and intelligibility

AI should be intelligible or understandable to developers, users and regulators. Two broad approaches to ensuring intelligibility are improving the transparency and explainability of AI technology. Transparency requires that sufficient information (described below) be published or documented before the design and deployment of an AI technology. Such information should facilitate meaningful public consultation and debate on how the AI technology is designed and how it should be used. Such information should continue to be published and documented regularly and in a timely manner after an AI technology is approved for use. Transparency will improve system quality and protect patient and public health safety. For instance, system evaluators require transparency in order to identify errors, and government regulators rely on transparency to conduct proper, effective oversight. It must be possible to audit an AI technology, including if something goes wrong. Transparency should include accurate information about the assumptions and limitations of the technology, operating protocols, the properties of the data (including methods of data collection, processing and labelling) and development of the algorithmic model. AI technologies should be explainable to the extent possible and according to the capacity of those to whom the explanation is directed. Data protection laws already create specific obligations of explainability for automated decision making. Those who might request or require an explanation should be well informed, and the educational information must be tailored to each population, including, for example, marginalized populations. Many AI technologies are complex, and the complexity might frustrate both the explainer and the person receiving the explanation. There is a possible trade off between full explainability of an algorithm (at the cost of accuracy) and improved accuracy (at the cost of explainability). All algorithms should be tested rigorously in the settings in which the technology will be used in order to ensure that it meets standards of safety and efficacy. The examination and validation should include the assumptions, operational protocols, data properties and output decisions of the AI technology. Tests and evaluations should be regular, transparent and of sufficient breadth to cover differences in the performance of the algorithm according to race, ethnicity, gender, age and other relevant human characteristics. There should be robust, independent oversight of such tests and evaluation to ensure that they are conducted safely and effectively. Health care institutions, health systems and public health agencies should regularly publish information about how decisions have been made for adoption of an AI technology and how the technology will be evaluated periodically, its uses, its known limitations and the role of decision making, which can facilitate external auditing and oversight.

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