The widespread utilization of AI systems has drawn attention to the potential impacts of such systems on society. Of particular concern are the consequences that prediction errors may have on real-world scenarios, and the trust humanity places in AI systems. It is necessary to understand how we can evaluate trustworthiness in AI and how individuals and entities alike can develop trustworthy AI systems. In this paper, we analyze each element of trustworthiness and provide a set of 20 guidelines that can be leveraged to ensure optimal AI functionality while taking into account the greater ethical, technical, and practical impacts to humanity. Moreover, the guidelines help ensure that trustworthiness is provable and can be demonstrated, they are implementation agnostic, and they can be applied to any AI system in any sector.
This paper introduces reviewability as a framework for improving the accountability of automated and algorithmic decision-making (ADM) involving machine learning. We draw on an understanding of ADM as a socio-technical process involving both human and technical elements, beginning before a decision is made and extending beyond the decision itself. While explanations and other model-centric mechanisms may assist some accountability concerns, they often provide insufficient information of these broader ADM processes for regulatory oversight and assessments of legal compliance. Reviewability involves breaking down the ADM process into technical and organisational elements to provide a systematic framework for determining the contextually appropriate record-keeping mechanisms to facilitate meaningful review - both of individual decisions and of the process as a whole. We argue that a reviewability framework, drawing on administrative law's approach to reviewing human decision-making, offers a practical way forward towards more a more holistic and legally-relevant form of accountability for ADM.
One is on how to design, develop, and validate AI technologies and systems responsibly (i.e., Responsible AI) so that we can adequately assure ethical and legal concerns, especially pertaining to human values. The other is the use of AI itself as a means to achieve the Responsible AI ends. In this chapter, we focus on the former issue. In the last few years, AI continues demonstrating its positive impact on society while sometimes with ethically questionable consequences. Not doing AI responsibly is starting to have devastating effect on humanity, not only on data protection, privacy and bias but also on labour rights and climate justice . Building and maintaining public trust in AI has been identified as the key to successful and sustainable innovation .
We present the "Annotation and Benchmarking on Understanding and Transparency of Machine Learning Lifecycles" (ABOUT ML) project as an initiative to operationalize ML transparency and work towards a standard ML documentation practice. We make the case for the project's relevance and effectiveness in consolidating disparate efforts across a variety of stakeholders, as well as bringing in the perspectives of currently missing voices that will be valuable in shaping future conversations. We describe the details of the initiative and the gaps we hope this project will help address.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in critical applications. Thus, the need for dependable AI systems is rapidly growing. In 2018, the European Commission appointed experts to a High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI-HLEG). AI-HLEG defined Trustworthy AI as 1) lawful, 2) ethical, and 3) robust and specified seven corresponding key requirements. To help development organizations, AI-HLEG recently published the Assessment List for Trustworthy AI (ALTAI). We present an illustrative case study from applying ALTAI to an ongoing development project of an Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) that relies on Machine Learning (ML). Our experience shows that ALTAI is largely applicable to ADAS development, but specific parts related to human agency and transparency can be disregarded. Moreover, bigger questions related to societal and environmental impact cannot be tackled by an ADAS supplier in isolation. We present how we plan to develop the ADAS to ensure ALTAI-compliance. Finally, we provide three recommendations for the next revision of ALTAI, i.e., life-cycle variants, domain-specific adaptations, and removed redundancy.