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

1. Responsible

DOD personnel will exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care while remaining responsible for the development, deployment and use of AI capabilities.

Principle: DoD's AI ethical principles, Feb 24, 2020

Published by Department of Defense (DoD), United States

Related Principles

Accountability

Those responsible for the different phases of the AI system lifecycle should be identifiable and accountable for the outcomes of the AI systems, and human oversight of AI systems should be enabled. This principle aims to acknowledge the relevant organisations' and individuals’ responsibility for the outcomes of the AI systems that they design, develop, deploy and operate. The application of legal principles regarding accountability for AI systems is still developing. Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure responsibility and accountability for AI systems and their outcomes. This includes both before and after their design, development, deployment and operation. The organisation and individual accountable for the decision should be identifiable as necessary. They must consider the appropriate level of human control or oversight for the particular AI system or use case. AI systems that have a significant impact on an individual's rights should be accountable to external review, this includes providing timely, accurate, and complete information for the purposes of independent oversight bodies.

Published by Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, Australian Government in AI Ethics Principles, Nov 7, 2019

1. Responsible.

Human beings should exercise appropriate levels of judgment and remain responsible for the development, deployment, use, and outcomes of DoD AI systems.

Published by Defense Innovation Board (DIB), Department of Defense (DoD), United States in AI Ethics Principles for DoD, Oct 31, 2019

5. Security

As specialists, members of the JSAI shall recognize the need for AI to be safe and acknowledge their responsibility in keeping AI under control. In the development and use of AI, members of the JSAI will always pay attention to safety, controllability, and required confidentiality while ensuring that users of AI are provided appropriate and sufficient information.

Published by The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence (JSAI) in The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence Ethical Guidelines, Feb 28, 2017

1. Principle of proper utilization

Users should make efforts to utilize AI systems or AI services in a proper scope and manner, under the proper assignment of roles between humans and AI systems, or among users. [Main points to discuss] A) Utilization in the proper scope and manner On the basis of the provision of information and explanation from developers, etc. and with consideration of social contexts and circumstances, users may be expected to use AI in the proper scope and manner. In addition, users may be expected to recognize benefits and risks, understand proper uses, acquire necessary knowledge and skills and so on before using AI, according to the characteristics, usage situations, etc. of AI. Furthermore, users may be expected to check regularly whether they use AI in an appropriate scope and manner. B) Proper balance of benefits and risks of AI AI service providers and business users may be expected to take into consideration proper balance between benefits and risks of AI, including the consideration of the active use of AI for productivity and work efficiency improvements, after appropriately assessing risks of AI. C) Updates of AI software and inspections repairs, etc. of AI Through the process of utilization, users may be expected to make efforts to update AI software and perform inspections, repairs, etc. of AI in order to improve the function of AI and to mitigate risks. D) Human Intervention Regarding the judgment made by AI, in cases where it is necessary and possible (e.g., medical care using AI), humans may be expected to make decisions as to whether to use the judgments of AI, how to use it etc. In those cases, what can be considered as criteria for the necessity of human intervention? In the utilization of AI that operates through actuators, etc., in the case where it is planned to shift to human operation under certain conditions, what kind of matters are expected to be paid attention to? [Points of view as criteria (example)] • The nature of the rights and interests of indirect users, et al., and their intents, affected by the judgments of AI. • The degree of reliability of the judgment of AI (compared with reliability of human judgment). • Allowable time necessary for human judgment • Ability expected to be possessed by users E) Role assignments among users With consideration of the volume of capabilities and knowledge on AI that each user is expected to have and ease of implementing necessary measures, users may be expected to play such roles as seems to be appropriate and also to bear the responsibility. F) Cooperation among stakeholders Users and data providers may be expected to cooperate with stakeholders and to work on preventive or remedial measures (including information sharing, stopping and restoration of AI, elucidation of causes, measures to prevent recurrence, etc.) in accordance with the nature, conditions, etc. of damages caused by accidents, security breaches, privacy infringement, etc. that may occur in the future or have occurred through the use of AI. What is expected reasonable from a users point of view to ensure the above effectiveness?

Published by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), the Government of Japan in Draft AI Utilization Principles, Jul 17, 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)