You Jeen Ha
ABSTRACT
As emerging technologies such as Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, and the Internet of Things (IoT) pose fundamental challenges for global and domestic technological governance, the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ (4IR) comes to the fore with AI as a frontrunner, generating discussions on the ethical elements of AI amongst key stakeholder groups, such as government, academia, industry, and civil society. However, in recent AI ethics and governance scholarship, AI ethics design appears to be divorced from AI ethics implementation, an implicit partition that results in two separate matters of theory and practice, respectively, and thus invokes efforts to bridge the ‘gap’ between the two. Such a partition potentially overcomplicates the discussion surrounding AI ethics and limits its productivity. This paper thus presents South Korea's people-centered ‘National Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence Ethics’ (국가인공지능윤리기준; ‘Guidelines’) and their development under the Moon administration as a case study that can help readers conceptualize AI ethics design and implementation as a continuous process rather than a partitioned one.
From a public value perspective, the case study examines the Guidelines and the multistakeholder policymaking infrastructure that serves as the foundation for both the Guidelines’ design and implementation. This examination draws from literature in AI ethics and governance, public management and administration, and Korean policy and cultural studies as well as government and public documents alongside 9 interviews with members from the four stakeholder groups that collectively designed and continue to deliberate upon the Guidelines. Further, the study specifically focuses on (i) identifying public values that were highlighted by the Guidelines, (ii) investigating how such values reflect prevalent Korean sociocultural norms, and (iii) exploring how these values, in a way made possible by Korean sociocultural norms and policymaking, have been negotiated amongst the four stakeholder groups in a democratic public sphere to be ultimately incorporated into the Guidelines and prepared for implementation. This paper hopes to contribute to theory-building in AI ethics and provide a point of comparison in the international stage for future research concerning AI ethics design and implementation.
- John Alford and Janine O’Flynn. 2009. Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and Emergent Meanings. International Journal of Public Administration 32, 3-4 (March 2009), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732731Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Frank Bannister and Regina Connolly. 2014. ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly 31, 1 (Jan. 2014), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Benington. 2009. Creating the Public In Order To Create Public Value?International Journal of Public Administration 32, 3-4 (March 2009), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902749578Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT)). 149–159. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/binns18a.htmlGoogle Scholar
- James Bohman. 2000. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy (reprint ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Phillip Boyle. 2001. Public Problems, Values, and Choices. Popular Government (2001). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:140784344Google Scholar
- Barry Bozeman. 2002. Public‐Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do?Public Administration Review 62, 2 (Jan. 2002), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00165Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Georgetown University Press, Georgetown, Washington DC.Google Scholar
- Roger Brownsword. 2017. From Erewhon to AlphaGo: for the sake of human dignity, should we destroy the machines?Law, Innovation and Technology 9, 1 (Jan. 2017), 117–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1303927Google ScholarCross Ref
- Korea Communications Commission. 2021. Basic Principles for Protection of Users of AI-Based Media Recommendation Services. Document. Retrieved September 28, 2021 from https://www.kcc.go.kr/download.do?fileSeq=51935Google Scholar
- Antonio Cordella and Leslie Willcocks. 2010. Outsourcing, bureaucracy and public value: Reappraising the notion of the ’contract state’. Government Information Quarterly 27, 1 (Jan. 2010), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.08.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan Crawford. 2018. Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution – and Why America Might Miss It. Yale University Pres, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
- Ruy de Castro Sobrosa Neto, Janayna Sobrosa Maia, Samara de Silva Neiva, Michael Dillon Scalia, and José Baltazar Salgueirnho Osório de Andrade Guerra. 2020. The fourth industrial revolution and the coronavirus: a new era catalyzed by a virus. Research in Globalization 2 (Dec. 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100024Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sina Fazelpour and Zachary C. Lipton. 2020. Algorithmic Fairness from a Non-Ideal Perspective. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(AIES ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375828Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luciano Floridi. 2017. Infraethics–on the Conditions of Possibility of Morality. Philosophy and Technology 30, 4 (Dec. 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0291-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Luciano Floridi. 2019. Translating Principles into Practices of Digital Ethics: Five Risks of Being Unethical. Philosophy & Technology 32 (2019), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00354-xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Danit Gal. 2020. Perspectives and Approaches in AI Ethics: East Asia. In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 606–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.39Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jürgen Habermas, Sara Lennox, and Frank Lennox. 1974. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New German Critique 3(1974), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/487737Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anders Hanberger. 2003. Public policy and legitimacy: A historical policy analysis of the interplay of public policy and legitimacy.Policy Sciences 36, 3 (Dec. 2003), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:OLIC.0000017471.88620.9aGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Vincent M. Hendricks, Peter Blanken, and Nico F.P. Adriaans. 1992. Theoretical and practical considerations. IVO, Rotterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Merve Hickok. 2021. Lessons learned from AI ethics principles for future actions. AI and Ethics 1, 1 (Feb. 2021), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00008-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ha Hwang and Min-Hye Park. 2020. The Threat of AI and Our Response: The AI Charter of Ethics in South Korea. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy 9, 1 (April 2020), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.7545/AJIP.2020.9.1.056Google ScholarCross Ref
- U.S. Department of Commerce International Trade Administration. 2021. South Korea - Information and Communication Technology. Retrieved August 29, 2021 from http://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/south-korea-information-and-communication-technologyGoogle Scholar
- Pilmo Jung. 2021. Legislative Hearing for Act on Creating Foundation for Trust and Fostering Artificial Intelligence. Video. Retrieved September 23, 2021 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Ch4-VWrc8Google Scholar
- Torben Beck Jørgensen and Barry Bozeman. 2007. Public Values: An Inventory. Administration & Society 39, 3 (May 2007), 354–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707300703Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hyeong-Woo Kan. 2020. Presidential committee lays out first ethical standards for AI. Retrieved September 21, 2021 from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20201223000794Google Scholar
- Hyongsoon Kim and Eunyoung Lee. 2015. A Study on ICT Strategies of PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games. In Proceedings of the Korea Information Processing Society Conference(Korea Information Processing Society Conference, Vol. 3). Korea Information Processing Society, 245–246. https://doi.org/10.3745/PKIPS.Y2015M10A.245.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Han-Joo Kim. 2017. (PyeongChang 2018) Cutting-edge technologies to greet Winter Olympics visitors. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20170120006500320Google Scholar
- Sungmoon Kim. 2009. Trouble with Korean Confucianism: Scholar-Official Between Ideal and Reality. Dao 8, 1 (March 2009), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-009-9105-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sang Yun Kim. 2019. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Trends and Impacts on the World of Work. In Handbook of Vocational Education and Training, Simon McGrath, Martin Mulder, Joy Papier, and Rebecca Suart (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94532-3_115Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yoochul Kim. 2018. What it felt like to visit the most tech-centric Olympics ever. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/02/23/104711/what-it-felt-like-to-visit-the-most-tech-centric-olympics-ever/Google Scholar
- Haksoo Ko and Joanne Koo. 2010. Cultural Values and the Korean Negotiator. Journal of Korean Law 9, 2 (June 2010), 225–244. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/85169/1/03H_Ko_and_J_Koo.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Joshua A. Kroll, Joanna Huey, Solon Barocas, Edward W. Felten, Joel R. Reidenberg, David G. Robinson, and Harlan Yu. 2017. Accountable Algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165 (2017). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2765268Google Scholar
- Ohbyung Kwon, Kyungwha Hwang, and Yun Seon Kim. 2019. Five Ethical Issues of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Logos Management Review 17, 3 (Sept. 2019), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.22724/LMR.2019.17.3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hyo Jin Lee. 2021. Controversial chatbot leaves lessons on AI use ethics. Retrieved October 19, 2021 from https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2021/10/133_302390.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Jongho Lee and Keun Lee. 2021. Is the fourth industrial revolution a continuation of the third industrial revolution or something new under the sun? Analyzing technological regimes using US patent data. Industrial and Corporate Change 30, 1 (June 2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtaa059Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sora Lee and Woojin Kang. 2021. Precision Regulation Approach: A COVID-19 Triggered Regulatory Drive in South Korea. Frontiers in Public Health 9 (Feb. 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.628073Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sora Lee and Ryan Wong. 2021. COVID-19 Responses of South Korea as Hybrids of Governance Modes. Frontiers in Public Health 9 (Sept. 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.654945Google ScholarCross Ref
- H.Y. Li, J.T. An, Y. Zhang, K.H.M. Mansur, and Y. Fu. 2021. Ethical Problems and Countermeasures of Artificial Intelligence Technology. E3S Web of Conferences 251 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125101063Google ScholarCross Ref
- Arend Lijphart. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. The American Political Science Review 65, 3 (1971), 682–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955513Google ScholarCross Ref
- Intralink Limited. 2018. Internet of Things South Korea Market Intelligence Report. Report. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://www.intralinkgroup.com/getmedia/d06c063d-738b-4a05-8cdb-1c7fe379fbb4/Korean-Internet-of-Things-Final-Report,-Technology,-BrochureGoogle Scholar
- Simon Matti. 2009. Exploring public policy legitimacy: a study of belief-system correspondence in Swedish environmental policy. Ph. D. Dissertation. LuleåUniversity of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.Google Scholar
- Justin McCurry. 2021. South Korean AI chatbot pulled from Facebook after hate speech towards minorities. Retrieved September 22, 2021 from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/14/time-to-properly-socialise-hate-speech-ai-chatbot-pulled-from-facebookGoogle Scholar
- Katharina Miller and Karen Wendt. 2021. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Its Impact on Ethics: Solving the Challenges of the Agenda 2030(1st. ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham.Google Scholar
- Erik Mobrand. 2019. Top-Down Democracy in South Korea. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
- Mark H. Moore. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government (revised ed.). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Jessica Morley, Anat Elhalal, Francesca Garcia, Libby Kinsey, Jakob Mökander, and Luciano Floridi. 2021. Ethics as a Service: A Pragmatic Operationalisation of AI Ethics. Minds and Machines 31, 2 (June 2021), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09563-wGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Jessica Morley, Luciano Floridi, Libby Kinsey, and Anat Elhalal. 2020. From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Sci Eng Ethics 26(2020), 2141–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jessica Morley, Libby Kinsey, Anat Elhalal, Francesca Garcia, Marta Ziosi, and Luciano Floridi. 2021. Operationalising AI ethics: barriers, enablers and next steps. AI & Soc 26(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01308-8Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wiebe Nauta, Jaekwang Han, and Taekyoon Kim. 2021. Inspiring Democratic Progress in Development Assistance: South Korea’s Aid Policy Reforms via Civic Engagement. Forum for Development Studies 48, 2 (May 2021), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2021.1907784Google ScholarCross Ref
- OECD. 2017. PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE ON THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION | STIP Compass. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://stip.oecd.org/stip/policy-initiatives/2019%2Fdata%2FpolicyInitiatives%2F16688Google Scholar
- OECD. 2019. The OECD AI Principles. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://www.oecd.org/digital/artificial-intelligence/ai-principles/Google ScholarCross Ref
- OECD. 2019. Scoping the OECD AI principles: Deliberations of the Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence at the OECD (AIGO). OECD Digital Economy Papers291 (Nov. 2019). https://doi.org/10.1787/d62f618a-enGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea. 2018. Korea PyeongChang Night” held during World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Mesmerizes People around World. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://www.mofa.go.kr/eng/brd/m_5676/view.do?seq=319661Google Scholar
- National Museum of Korea. 2021. Samganghaengsildo, An Illustrated Guide to the Three Bonds. Retrieved November 30, 2021 from https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/represent/view?relicId=2831Google Scholar
- Personal Information Protection Commission of Korea. 2021. AI Personal Information Protection Self-Checklist (for Developer and User Use). Document.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea. 2020. Human-Centered AI Ethics Guidelines. Document. Retrieved March 23, 2021 from https://www.4th-ir.go.kr/article/detail/1197?boardName=internalData&category=agendaGoogle Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea. 2020. MSIT releases human-centered ’National Guidelines for AI Ethics’ draft. Report.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea. 2021. Plan for Implementation of Human-Centered, Trustworthy AI. Report. Retrieved September 27, 2021 from https://www.msit.go.kr/bbs/view.do?sCode=user&mId=113&mPid=112&pageIndex=&bbsSeqNo=94&nttSeqNo=3180239&searchOpt=ALL&searchTxt=Google Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea. 2021. Policy Seminar for Implementation of Human-Centered AI. Report. Retrieved September 27, 2021 from https://policy.nl.go.kr/search/searchDetail.do?rec_key=SH2_PLC20210264305&kwd=Google Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea. 2021. Policy Seminar for Implementation of Human-Centered AI. Video. Retrieved September 27, 2021 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c-vc4duXLo&t=565sGoogle Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea and Korea Information Society Development Institute (KISDI). 2020. National Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Ethics. Document.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Science & ICT of Korea and Korea’s Presidential Committee on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 2020. ’National Guidelines for AI Ethics’ Draft Public Hearing. Video. Retrieved September 22, 2021 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuiJlKzYkkMGoogle Scholar
- The Government of the Republic of Korea. 2019. Toward AI World Leader beyond AI: National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. Report. Retrieved September 12, 2021 from https://english.msit.go.kr/eng/bbs/view.do?sCode=eng&mId=10&mPid=9&bbsSeqNo=46&nttSeqNo=9 Government Report No. 11-1721000-000393-01.Google Scholar
- Seong-Mok Oh. 2018. KT showcases 5G innovation at the Olympics in PyeongChang. Retrieved September 11, 2021 from https://news.itu.int/kt-showcase-5g-olympics/Google Scholar
- Chisung Park and Jooha Lee. 2020. Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea. Policy Sciences 53, 4 (Dec. 2020), 637–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09394-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Chisung Park, Jooha Lee, and Changho Chung. 2015. Is“legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea. Policy Sciences 48, 3 (Sept. 2015), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9220-2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kyung Ryul Park, Sundeep Sahay, Jørn Braa, and Pamod Amarakoon. 2021. Digital Resilience for What? Case Study of South Korea. In Proceedings of the 1st Virtual Conference on Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development(1st Virtual Conference on Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development). Working Group 9.4 of the International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP), 139–152. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2108/2108.09950.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Huw Roberts, Josh Cowls, Jessica Morley, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Vincent Wang, and Luciano Floridi. 2021. The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Soc 36 (March 2021), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2Google ScholarDigital Library
- Francesca Rossi and Nicholas Mattei. 2019. Building Ethically Bounded AI. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. AAAI, 9785–9789. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019785Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gilbert Rozman. 2002. Can Confucianism Survive in an Age of Universalism and Globalization?Pacific Affairs 75, 1 (2002), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/4127239Google ScholarCross Ref
- Oscar Schwartz. 2019. In 2016, Microsoft’s Racist Chatbot Revealed the Dangers of Online Conversation. Retrieved September 22, 2021 from https://spectrum.ieee.org/in-2016-microsofts-racist-chatbot-revealed-the-dangers-of-online-conversationGoogle Scholar
- Gerry Stoker. 2006. Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?The American Review of Public Administration 36, 1 (March 2006), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583Google ScholarCross Ref
- Deborah Stone. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd. ed.). Norton & Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Tae Kyung Sung. 2018. Industry 4.0: A Korea perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 132 (July 2018), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.11.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamed Taherdoost. 2016. Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. SSRN Electronic Journal(2016). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob Torfing, B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre, and Eva Sørensen. 2012. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm (3rd. ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Weiming Tu. 1993. Probing the ’Three Bonds’ and ’Five Relationships’. In Confucianism and the Family: A Study of Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism, Walter H. Slote and George A. De Vos (Eds.). SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
- Jess Whittlestone, Rune Nyrup, Anna Alexandrova, and Stpehen Cave. 2019. The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(AIES ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- South Korean Public Value Coproduction Towards ‘AI for Humanity’: A Synergy of Sociocultural Norms and Multistakeholder Deliberation in Bridging the Design and Implementation of National AI Ethics Guidelines
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Public Value Provision: A Design Theory for Public E-services
SRII '12: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual SRII Global ConferenceThis paper addresses the design challenge of providing ICT systems for public e-service provision. Public sector services differ qualitatively from private sector services in that they aim to provide not just value for money but also public value. ...
Artificial Intelligence Diffusion in Public Administration
AIES '22: Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and SocietyThe use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public administration has immense benefits but also embodies ethical dilemmas of fairness, transparency, privacy, and human rights. Several frameworks have been developed by governments and technology companies ...
Liberating data for public value
Public agencies around the globe are liberating their data. Drawing on a case of Data.gov, we outline the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for the liberation of public data. Data.gov is an online portal that provides open access to datasets ...
Comments