Suchergebnisse

The right to contest a decision with consequences on individuals or the society is a well-established democratic right. Despite this right also being explicitly included in GDPR in reference to automated decision-making, its study seems to have received much less attention in the AI literature compared, for example, to the right for explanation. This paper investigates the type of assurances that are needed in the contesting process when algorithmic black boxes are involved, opening new questions about the interplay of contestability and explainability. We argue that specialised complementary methodologies to evaluate automated decision-making in the case of a particular decision being contested need to be developed. Further, we propose a combination of well-established software engineering and rule-based approaches as a possible socio-technical solution to the issue of contestability, one of the new democratic challenges posed by the automation of decision making. ; This work has been partly supported by the project that has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 739578 (RISE – Call: H2020-WIDESPREAD-01-2016-2017-TeamingPhase2) and the Republic of Cyprus through the Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy.

Different people have different perceptions about artificial intelligence (AI). It is extremely important to bring together all the alternative frames of thinking—from the various communities of developers, researchers, business leaders, policymakers, and citizens—to properly start acknowledging AI. This article highlights the 'fruitful collaboration' that sociology and AI could develop in both social and technical terms. We discuss how biases and unfairness are among the major challenges to be addressed in such a sociotechnical perspective. First, as intelligent machines reveal their nature of 'magnifying glasses' in the automation of existing inequalities, we show how the AI technical community is calling for transparency and explainability, accountability and contestability. Not to be considered as panaceas, they all contribute to ensuring human control in novel practices that include requirement, design and development methodologies for a fairer AI. Second, we elaborate on the mounting attention for technological narratives as technology is recognized as a social practice within a specific institutional context. Not only do narratives reflect organizing visions for society, but they also are a tangible sign of the traditional lines of social, economic, and political inequalities. We conclude with a call for a diverse approach within the AI community and a richer knowledge about narratives as they help in better addressing future technical developments, public debate, and policy. AI practice is interdisciplinary by nature and it will benefit from a socio-technical perspective.

Although not a goal universally held, maintaining human-centric artificial intelligence is necessary for society's long-term stability. Fortunately, the legal and technological problems of maintaining control are actually fairly well understood and amenable to engineering. The real problem is establishing the social and political will for assigning and maintaining accountability for artifacts when these artefacts are generated or used. In this chapter we review the necessity and tractability of maintaining human control, and the mechanisms by which such control can be achieved. What makes the problem both most interesting and most threatening is that achieving consensus around any human-centred approach requires at least some measure of agreement on broad existential concerns.

Although not a goal universally held, maintaining human-centric artificial intelligence is necessary for society's long-term stability. Fortunately, the legal and technological problems of maintaining control are actually fairly well understood and amenable to engineering. The real problem is establishing the social and political will for assigning and maintaining accountability for artifacts when these artifacts are generated or used. In this chapter we review the necessity and tractability of maintaining human control and the mechanisms by which such control can be achieved. What makes the problem both most interesting and most threatening is that achieving consensus around any human-centered approach requires at least some measure of agreement on broad existential concerns.

AbstractData and autonomous systems are taking over our lives, from healthcare to smart homes very few aspects of our day to day are not permeated by them. The technological advances enabled by these technologies are limitless. However, with advantages so too come challenges. As these technologies encompass more and more aspects of our lives, we are forgetting the ethical, legal, safety and moral concerns that arise as an outcome of integrating our lives with technology. In this work, we study the lifecycle of artificial intelligence from data gathering to deployment, providing a structured analytical assessment of the potential ethical, safety and legal concerns. The paper then presents the foundations for the first ethical artificial intelligence sustainability statement to guide future development of AI in a safe and sustainable manner.