The role of epistemic communities in the “constitutionalization” of internet governance: The example of the European Commission High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 102149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Palladino
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Epistemic Communities ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Internet Governance ◽  
High Level

scholarly journals Of Duels, Trials and Simplifying Systems

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-692
Author(s):  
Giovanni SILENO
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Disruptive Innovation ◽  
Short Paper ◽  
Technological Evolution ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Symbolic Systems ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Impact

This short paper aims to unpack some of the assumptions underlying the “Policy and Investment Recommendation for Trustworthy AI” provided by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI) appointed by the European Commission. It elaborates in particular on three aspects: on the technical-legal dimensions of trustworthy AI; on what we mean by AI; and on the impact of AI. The consequent analysis results in the identification, amongst others, of three recurrent simplifications, respectively concerning the definition of AI (sub-symbolic systems instead of “intelligent” informational processing systems), the interface between AI and institutions (neatly separated instead of continuity) and a plausible technological evolution (expecting a plateau instead of a potentially near-disruptive innovation).

scholarly journals A Critical Take on the Policy Recommendations of the EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael VEALE
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Modern Information ◽  
Commission President ◽  
High Level ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
The Eu

The European Commission recently published the policy recommendations of its “High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence”: a heavily anticipated document, particularly in the context of the stated ambition of the new Commission President to regulate in that area. This article argues that these recommendations have significant deficits in a range of areas. It analyses a selection of the Group’s proposals in context of the governance of artificial intelligence more broadly, focusing on issues of framing, representation and expertise, and on the lack of acknowledgement of key issues of power and infrastructure underpinning modern information economies and practices of optimisation.

scholarly journals Análisis de la propuesta de Reglamento sobre los principios éticos para el desarrollo, el despliegue y el uso de la inteligencia artificial, la robótica y las tecnologías conexas.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-41
Author(s):  
Guillermo Lazcoz Moratinos
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Commission ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
General Application ◽  
Legislative Proposal ◽  
Constructive Criticism ◽  
High Level

On 20 October 2020, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (2020/2012(INL)) with recommendations to the Commission regarding artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies, which included a legislative proposal for a Regulation on the ethical principles for the development, deployment and use of these technologies. The content of this proposal undoubtedly follows from the regulatory vision that the European Commission has maintained in documents such as the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence (COM(2020) 65 final) or the Ethical guidelines for trustworthy AI drawn up by the High-Level Expert Group on AI. Given this new legislative horizon, it is more necessary than ever to address a constructive criticism on the proposal, highlighting the possibility of reformulating its markedly soft-law character despite its location in a regulatory source of general application and directly applicable, such as regulations, or the adopted approach for certain key principles such as human supervision or discrimination.

Europe

2020 ◽  
pp. 649-666
Author(s):  
Andrea Renda
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Strong Focus ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
High Level

This chapter assesses Europe’s efforts in developing a full-fledged strategy on the human and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI). The strong focus on ethics in the European Union’s AI strategy should be seen in the context of an overall strategy that aims at protecting citizens and civil society from abuses of digital technology but also as part of a competitiveness-oriented strategy aimed at raising the standards for access to Europe’s wealthy Single Market. In this context, one of the most peculiar steps in the European Union’s strategy was the creation of an independent High-Level Expert Group on AI (AI HLEG), accompanied by the launch of an AI Alliance, which quickly attracted several hundred participants. The AI HLEG, a multistakeholder group including fifty-two experts, was tasked with the definition of Ethics Guidelines as well as with the formulation of “Policy and Investment Recommendations.” With the advice of the AI HLEG, the European Commission put forward ethical guidelines for Trustworthy AI—which are now paving the way for a comprehensive, risk-based policy framework.

scholarly journals Actionable Principles for Artificial Intelligence Policy: Three Pathways

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Stix
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Governmental Policy ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
High Level

AbstractIn the development of governmental policy for artificial intelligence (AI) that is informed by ethics, one avenue currently pursued is that of drawing on “AI Ethics Principles”. However, these AI Ethics Principles often fail to be actioned in governmental policy. This paper proposes a novel framework for the development of ‘Actionable Principles for AI’. The approach acknowledges the relevance of AI Ethics Principles and homes in on methodological elements to increase their practical implementability in policy processes. As a case study, elements are extracted from the development process of the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI of the European Commission’s “High Level Expert Group on AI”. Subsequently, these elements are expanded on and evaluated in light of their ability to contribute to a prototype framework for the development of 'Actionable Principles for AI'. The paper proposes the following three propositions for the formation of such a prototype framework: (1) preliminary landscape assessments; (2) multi-stakeholder participation and cross-sectoral feedback; and, (3) mechanisms to support implementation and operationalizability.

scholarly journals Artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine, current applications and future role with special emphasis on its potential and promise in pathology: present and future impact, obstacles including costs and acceptance among pathologists, practical and philosophical considerations. A comprehensive review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zubair Ahmad ◽  
Shabina Rahim ◽  
Maha Zubair ◽  
Jamshid Abdul-Ghafar
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Accurate Diagnosis ◽  
Surgical Pathology ◽  
Computer Algorithms ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Future Role ◽  
Personalized Care ◽  
High Level

Abstract Background The role of Artificial intelligence (AI) which is defined as the ability of computers to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence is constantly expanding. Medicine was slow to embrace AI. However, the role of AI in medicine is rapidly expanding and promises to revolutionize patient care in the coming years. In addition, it has the ability to democratize high level medical care and make it accessible to all parts of the world. Main text Among specialties of medicine, some like radiology were relatively quick to adopt AI whereas others especially pathology (and surgical pathology in particular) are only just beginning to utilize AI. AI promises to play a major role in accurate diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of cancers. In this paper, the general principles of AI are defined first followed by a detailed discussion of its current role in medicine. In the second half of this comprehensive review, the current and future role of AI in surgical pathology is discussed in detail including an account of the practical difficulties involved and the fear of pathologists of being replaced by computer algorithms. A number of recent studies which demonstrate the usefulness of AI in the practice of surgical pathology are highlighted. Conclusion AI has the potential to transform the practice of surgical pathology by ensuring rapid and accurate results and enabling pathologists to focus on higher level diagnostic and consultative tasks such as integrating molecular, morphologic and clinical information to make accurate diagnosis in difficult cases, determine prognosis objectively and in this way contribute to personalized care.

scholarly journals A Critical Take on the Policy Recommendations of the EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Veale
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Modern Information ◽  
Commission President ◽  
High Level ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
The Eu

Cite as Michael Veale, ‘A Critical Take on the Policy Recommendations of the EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) __ European Journal of Risk Regulation __. doi:10/ggjdjsThe European Commission recently published the policy recommendations of its ‘High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence’: a heavily anticipated document, particularly in the context of the stated ambition of the new Commission President to regulate in that area. This essay argues that these recommendations have significant deficits in a range of areas. It analyses a selection of the Group’s proposals in context of the governance of artificial intelligence more broadly, focussing on issues of framing, representation and expertise, and on the lack of acknowledgement of key issues of power and infrastructure underpinning modern information economies and practices of optimisation.

A framework for a data interest analysis of artificial intelligence

First Monday ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gry Hasselbalch
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Governance Framework ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
High Level ◽  
Ethical Governance ◽  
The Eu

This article makes a case for a data interest analysis of artificial intelligence (AI) that explores how different interests in data are empowered or disempowered by design. The article uses the EU High-Level Expert Group on AI’s Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI as an applied ethics approach to data interests with a human-centric ethical governance framework and accordingly suggests ethical questions that will help resolve conflicts between data interests in AI design

scholarly journals On the Governance of Artificial Intelligence through Ethics Guidelines

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Stefan LARSSON
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
China And Japan ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
High Level ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article uses a socio-legal perspective to analyze the use of ethics guidelines as a governance tool in the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI). This has become a central policy area in several large jurisdictions, including China and Japan, as well as the EU, focused on here. Particular emphasis in this article is placed on the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI published by the EU Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence in April 2019, as well as the White Paper on AI, published by the EU Commission in February 2020. The guidelines are reflected against partially overlapping and already-existing legislation as well as the ephemeral concept construct surrounding AI as such. The article concludes by pointing to (1) the challenges of a temporal discrepancy between technological and legal change, (2) the need for moving from principle to process in the governance of AI, and (3) the multidisciplinary needs in the study of contemporary applications of data-dependent AI.

scholarly journals In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 2749-2767
Author(s):  
Mark Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Interpersonal Trust ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Human Relationships ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
High Level ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract One of the main difficulties in assessing artificial intelligence (AI) is the tendency for people to anthropomorphise it. This becomes particularly problematic when we attach human moral activities to AI. For example, the European Commission’s High-level Expert Group on AI (HLEG) have adopted the position that we should establish a relationship of trust with AI and should cultivate trustworthy AI (HLEG AI Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, 2019, p. 35). Trust is one of the most important and defining activities in human relationships, so proposing that AI should be trusted, is a very serious claim. This paper will show that AI cannot be something that has the capacity to be trusted according to the most prevalent definitions of trust because it does not possess emotive states or can be held responsible for their actions—requirements of the affective and normative accounts of trust. While AI meets all of the requirements of the rational account of trust, it will be shown that this is not actually a type of trust at all, but is instead, a form of reliance. Ultimately, even complex machines such as AI should not be viewed as trustworthy as this undermines the value of interpersonal trust, anthropomorphises AI, and diverts responsibility from those developing and using them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document