ABSTRACT
Our lives have been increasingly filled with technologies that use Artificial Intelligence (AI), whether at home, in public spaces, in social organizations, or in services. Like other technologies, adopting this emerging technology also requires society’s attention to the challenges that may arise from it. The media brought to the public some unexpected results from using these technologies, for example, the unfairness case in the COMPAS system. It became more evident that these technologies can have unintended consequences. In particular, in the public interest domain, these unintended consequences and their origin are a challenge for public policies, governance, and responsible AI. This work aims to identify the technological and ethical risks in data-driven decision systems based on AI and conduct a diagnosis of these risks and their perception. To do that, we use a triangulation of methods. In the first stage, a search on Web of Science has been performed. We consider all the 412 papers. The second stage corresponds to a analysis of experts. The papers have been classified according to the relevance to the topic by the experts. In the third stage, we use the survey method and include risk insights from stage two in our questions. We found 24 concerns which arise from the perspective of the ethical and technological risk perspective. The perception of participants regarding the level of concern they have with the risks of a data-driven system based on AI is high than their perception of society’s concern. Fairness is considered the risk whose perception is more severe. Fairness, Bias, Accountability, Interpretability, and Explainability are considered the most relevant concepts for a responsible AI. Consequently, also the most relevant for responsible governance of AI.
- Anne L. Ashington. 2016. compas- Propublica how To Argue With an Algorithm : Lessons From the Compas- Propublica Debate. (2016), 131–160.Google Scholar
- Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, R. Kim, J. Schulz, J. Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature563, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6Google Scholar
- Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Azim Shariff, Iyad Rahwan, and Jean-François Bonnefon. 2020. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 5 (2020), 2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911517117Google ScholarCross Ref
- Axente, M.L.2021. How do we ensure the responsible use of AI by Governments?https://digitaltechitp.nz/2021/04/07/how-do-we-ensure-the-responsible-use-of-ai-by-governments/Google Scholar
- Marion Baylé. 2019. AI today: definition, use cases, risks, and unexpected consequences on society. https://uxdesign.cc/ai-today-definition-what-is-ai-for-risks-and-unexpected-consequences-on-society-3eda9b78a37aGoogle Scholar
- Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352, 6293 (2016), 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654Google Scholar
- V. Dignum. 2017. "Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Designing AI for Human Values.ITU Journal: ICT Discoveries 1 (2017).Google Scholar
- Luciano Floridi, Josh Cowls, Monica Beltrametti, Raja Chatila, Patrice Chazerand, Virginia Dignum, Christoph Luetge, Robert Madelin, Ugo Pagallo, Francesca Rossi, Burkhard Schafer, Peggy Valcke, and Effy Vayena. 2018. AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines 28, 4 (12 2018), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luciano Floridi, Josh Cowls, Thomas C. King, and Mariarosaria Taddeo. 2020. How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors. Science and Engineering Ethics(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5Google Scholar
- Internantional Risk Governance Center. 2018. The Governance of Decision-Making Algorithms. Technical Report. 9–10 pages. https://irgc.epfl.ch/issues/projects-cybersecurity/the-governance-of-decision-making-algorithms/Google Scholar
- Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2011. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3, 2 (2011), 220–246.Google Scholar
- J.B. Kruskal. 1964. "Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method.Psychometrika 29(1964), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289694Google Scholar
- Lydia Manikonda, Aditya Deotale, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2018. What’s up with Privacy?: User Preferences and Privacy Concerns in Intelligent Personal Assistants. In AIES 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278773Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Maroco. 2011. "Analise Estatistica com utilizacao do SPSS.Pero Pinheiro.Google Scholar
- R. Noothigattu, S. Gaikwad, Edmond Awad, S. Dsouza, I. Rahwan, P. Ravikumar, and A. Procaccia. 2018. A Voting-Based System for Ethical Decision Making, In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AAAI-18.Google Scholar
- Web of Knowledge. 2022. Web of Science Core Collection Help. Retrieved May 2, 2022 from https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_research_areas_easca.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Kaj Sotala and Lukas Gloor. 2017. Superintelligence as a Cause or Cure for Risks of Astronomical Suffering. Technical Report. 389 pages.Google Scholar
- Kutoma Wakunuma, George Ogoh, Damian Eke, and Simi Akintoye. 2022. Responsible AI, SDGs, and AI Governance in Africa. IST-Africa 2022 Conference Proceedings(2022).Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- An Exploratory Diagnosis of Artificial Intelligence Risks for a Responsible Governance.
Recommendations
ICT for governance in combating corruption: the case of public e-procurement in Portugal
ICEGOV '14: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernanceLiterature has highlighted the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) in building new models of public governance that promote fairness and accountability, which are key requirements in the fight against corruption. In this context, ...
The role of experts in the public perception of risk of artificial intelligence
AbstractThe goal of this paper is to describe the mechanism of the public perception of risk of artificial intelligence. For that we apply the social amplification of risk framework to the public perception of artificial intelligence using data collected ...
E-governance and governance: a case study of the assessment of the effects of integrated financial management system on good governance in two municipal councils in Kenya
ICEGOV '07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governanceThe potential for ICT to positively contribute to good governance has been known for a long time and has been the subject of many articles and reports, but very little concrete empirical evidence of the effects of ICT on governance, and how these ...
Comments