Emerging Consensus on 'Ethical AI': Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines
Emerging Consensus on 'Ethical AI': Human Rights Critique of Stakeholder Guidelines
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1758-5899.12965
复制
发表时间：
2021-06-19
期刊：
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Gibbons, Elizabeth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko;Gibbons, Elizabeth
利益攸关方对“道德行为”的自愿指导方针是为了解决人们对人工智能和数字技术有害社会后果的日益担忧。该指导方针由来自行业、政府和专业协会的数十名参与者发布，正在就人工智能(AI)的伦理设计、开发和部署的核心标准和原则达成共识。利用人权原则(平等、参与和问责)和对隐私权的关注，本文审查了15项预先选出的关于人权和全球健康的最强指南。我们发现，其中约有一半的指导方针是以国际人权法为基础的，并纳入了关键原则；即使是这些原则也可以走得更远，特别是在提出实施这些原则的方法方面。那些采用道德框架的国家在制定问责标准方面尤其薄弱，往往侧重于“透明度”，而对有效保护社会利益的可执行性和参与性保持沉默。这些准则提到人权是一种修辞手段，目的是掩盖缺乏可执行的标准和问责措施，并将注意力放在单一的隐私权上。这些“道德”准则大多来自企业和其他利益集团，在解决不平等和歧视方面也很薄弱。我们认为，自愿准则正在创造一套事实上的规范，并对“人权”一词进行重新解释，这将被认为是该领域的“道德”实践。这暴露了各国政府和民间社会迫切需要采取行动，以国际人权框架为基础，制定更严格的标准和监管措施，能够追究大型科技公司和其他强大行为者的责任。
Voluntary guidelines on 'ethical practices' have been the response by stakeholders to address the growing concern over harmful social consequences of artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Issued by dozens of actors from industry, government and professional associations, the guidelines are creating a consensus on core standards and principles for ethical design, development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). Using human rights principles (equality, participation and accountability) and attention to the right to privacy, this paper reviews 15 guidelines preselected to be strongest on human rights, and on global health. We find about half of these ground their guidelines in international human rights law and incorporate the key principles; even these could go further, especially in suggesting ways to operationalize them. Those that adopt the ethics framework are particularly weak in laying out standards for accountability, often focusing on 'transparency', and remaining silent on enforceability and participation which would effectively protect the social good. These guidelines mention human rights as a rhetorical device to obscure the absence of enforceable standards and accountability measures, and give their attention to the single right to privacy. These 'ethics' guidelines, disproportionately from corporations and other interest groups, are also weak on addressing inequalities and discrimination. We argue that voluntary guidelines are creating a set of de facto norms and re-interpretation of the term 'human rights' for what would be considered 'ethical' practice in the field. This exposes an urgent need for action by governments and civil society to develop more rigorous standards and regulatory measures, grounded in international human rights frameworks, capable of holding Big Tech and other powerful actors to account.