Europe

Author(s):  
Andrea Renda

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.

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-692
Author(s):  
Giovanni SILENO

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).


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Stix

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.


First Monday ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gry Hasselbalch

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


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Stefan LARSSON

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 2749-2767
Author(s):  
Mark Ryan

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 26-41
Author(s):  
Guillermo Lazcoz Moratinos

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.


Author(s):  
Abigail Berry

The famous anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu argued that there is an “unnatural idea of inborn culture, of a gift of culture, bestowed on certain people by Nature.” [1] Bourdieu is arguing that people, who have not been born into a higher class, or who cannot receive a high level of education, are unable to appreciate and understand art. The study of art history is expensive, and often involves extremely high travel costs, thus making it inaccessible to anybody who does not enjoy the means to pursue it. How can we address this accessibility problem in the study of art history? Is there any way to bring art to the people who do not possess “inborn culture?” Bourdieu wrote his book on art and class in 1984, at a time when the computer, and its democratizing potential, was a new and little -understood invention. My research proposes that modern technology provides an answer to this problem, which has plagued the discipline of art history. This presentation will examine three research projects that I’ve been working on at Queen’s. Each project uses digital technologies to improve the general public’s knowledge and access to art. The projects are all different: the first focuses on creating a digital model of 18th - century Canterbury Cathedral based on a book from W.D. Jordan Rare Books and Special Collections, the second project works on understanding Herstmonceux Castle and medieval England through technology, and the third involves image processing for art historical investigations. Despite their differences, each project makes art accessible to people who do not possess Bourdieu’s definition of “inborn culture.”        


Author(s):  
Anri Leimanis

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications to education have encouraged an extensive global discourse on the underlying ethical principles and values. In a response numerous research institutions, companies, public agencies and non-governmental entities around the globe have published their own guidelines and / or policies for ethical AI. Even though the aim for most of the guidelines is to maximize the benefits that AI delivers to education, the policies differ significantly in content as well as application. In order to facilitate further discussion about the ethical principles, responsibilities of educational institutions using AI and to potentially arrive at a consensus concerning safe and desirable uses of AI in education, this paper performs an evaluation of the self-imposed AI ethics guidelines identifying the common principles and approaches as well as drawbacks limiting the practical and legal application of the policies.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Veale

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document