An official website of the United States government
How can the public sector use AI ethically and responsibly for the benefit of people? The sustainable development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector requires dialogue and deliberation between developers, decision makers, deployers, end users, and the public. This paper contributes to the debate on how to develop persuasive government approaches for steering the development and use of AI. We examine the ethical issues and the role of the public in the debate on developing public sector governance of socially and democratically sustainable and technology-intensive societies. To concretize this discussion, we study the co-development of a Finnish national AI program AuroraAI, which aims to provide citizens with tailored and timely services for different life situations, utilizing AI. With the help of this case study, we investigate the challenges posed by the development and use of AI in the service of public administration. We draw particular attention to the efforts made by the AuroraAI Ethics Board in deliberating the AuroraAI solution options and working toward a sustainable and inclusive AI society.
more »
« less
Public Value Principles for Secure and Trusted AI
The objective of this paper is to establish the fundamental public value principles that should govern safe and trusted artificial intelligence (AI). Public value is a dynamic concept that encompasses several dimensions. AI itself has evolved quite rapidly in the last few years, especially with the swift escalation of Generative AI. Governments around the world are grappling with how to govern AI, just as technologists ring alarm bells about the future consequences of AI. Our paper extends the debate on AI governance that is focused on ethical values of beneficence to that of economic values of public good. Viewed as a public good, AI use is beyond the control of the creators. Towards this end, the paper examined AI policies in the United States and Europe. We postulate three principles from a public values perspective: (i) ensuring security and privacy of each individual (or entity); (ii) ensuring trust in AI systems is verifiable; and (iii) ensuring fair and balanced AI protocols, wherein the underlying components of data and algorithms are contestable and open to public debate.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1924154
- PAR ID:
- 10527225
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- ISBN:
- 9798400709883
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 251 to 257
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Artificial Intelligence Security Public value Public good
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Taipei Taiwan
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Responsible AI (RAI) is the science and practice of ensuring the design, development, use, and oversight of AI are socially sustainable---benefiting diverse stakeholders while controlling the risks. Achieving this goal requires active engagement and participation from the broader public. This paper introduces We are AI: Taking Control of Technology, a public education course that brings the topics of AI and RAI to the general audience in a peer-learning setting. We outline the goals behind the course's development, discuss the multi-year iterative process that shaped its creation, and summarize its content. We also discuss two offerings of We are AI to an active and engaged group of librarians and professional staff at New York University, highlighting successes and areas for improvement. The course materials, including a multilingual comic book series by the same name, are publicly available and can be used independently. By sharing our experience in creating and teaching We are AI, we aim to introduce these resources to the community of AI educators, researchers, and practitioners, supporting their public education efforts.more » « less
-
Reddy, S.; Winter, J.S.; Padmanabhan, S. (Ed.)AI applications are poised to transform health care, revolutionizing benefits for individuals, communities, and health-care systems. As the articles in this special issue aptly illustrate, AI innovations in healthcare are maturing from early success in medical imaging and robotic process automation, promising a broad range of new applications. This is evidenced by the rapid deployment of AI to address critical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including disease diagnosis and monitoring, drug discovery, and vaccine development. At the heart of these innovations is the health data required for deep learning applications. Rapid accumulation of data, along with improved data quality, data sharing, and standardization, enable development of deep learning algorithms in many healthcare applications. One of the great challenges for healthcare AI is effective governance of these data—ensuring thoughtful aggregation and appropriate access to fuel innovation and improve patient outcomes and healthcare system efficiency while protecting the privacy and security of data subjects. Yet the literature on data governance has rarely looked beyond important pragmatic issues related to privacy and security. Less consideration has been given to unexpected or undesirable outcomes of healthcare in AI, such as clinician deskilling, algorithmic bias, the “regulatory vacuum”, and lack of public engagement. Amidst growing calls for ethical governance of algorithms, Reddy et al. developed a governance model for AI in healthcare delivery, focusing on principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAT), and trustworthiness, and calling for wider discussion. Winter and Davidson emphasize the need to identify underlying values of healthcare data and use, noting the many competing interests and goals for use of health data—such as healthcare system efficiency and reform, patient and community health, intellectual property development, and monetization. Beyond the important considerations of privacy and security, governance must consider who will benefit from healthcare AI, and who will not. Whose values drive health AI innovation and use? How can we ensure that innovations are not limited to the wealthiest individuals or nations? As large technology companies begin to partner with health care systems, and as personally generated health data (PGHD) (e.g., fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, health information searches on the Internet) proliferate, who has oversight of these complex technical systems, which are essentially a black box? To tackle these complex and important issues, it is important to acknowledge that we have entered a new technical, organizational, and policy environment due to linked data, big data analytics, and AI. Data governance is no longer the responsibility of a single organization. Rather, multiple networked entities play a role and responsibilities may be blurred. This also raises many concerns related to data localization and jurisdiction—who is responsible for data governance? In this emerging environment, data may no longer be effectively governed through traditional policy models or instruments.more » « less
-
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) has found its way into various work tasks, questions about whether its usage should be disclosed and the consequences of such disclosure have taken center stage in public and academic discourse on digital transparency. This article addresses this debate by asking: Does disclosing the usage of AI compromise trust in the user? We examine the impact of AI disclosure on trust across diverse tasks—from communications via analytics to artistry—and across individual actors such as supervisors, subordinates, professors, analysts, and creatives, as well as across organizational actors such as investment funds. Thirteen experiments consistently demonstrate that actors who disclose their AI usage are trusted less than those who do not. Drawing on micro-institutional theory, we argue that this reduction in trust can be explained by reduced perceptions of legitimacy, as shown across various experimental designs (Studies 6–8). Moreover, we demonstrate that this negative effect holds across different disclosure framings, above and beyond algorithm aversion, regardless of whether AI involvement is known, and regardless of whether disclosure is voluntary or mandatory, though it is comparatively weaker than the effect of third-party exposure (Studies 9–13). A within-paper meta-analysis suggests this trust penalty is attenuated but not eliminated among evaluators with favorable technology attitudes and perceptions of high AI accuracy. This article contributes to research on trust, AI, transparency, and legitimacy by showing that AI disclosure can harm social perceptions, emphasizing that transparency is not straightforwardly beneficial, and highlighting legitimacy’s central role in trust formation.more » « less
-
Abstract The use of algorithms and automated systems, especially those leveraging artificial intelligence (AI), has been exploding in the public sector, but their use has been controversial. Ethicists, public advocates, and legal scholars have debated whether biases in AI systems should bar their use or if the potential net benefits, especially toward traditionally disadvantaged groups, justify even greater expansion. While this debate has become voluminous, no scholars of which we are aware have conducted experiments with the groups affected by these policies about how they view the trade-offs. We conduct a set of two conjoint experiments with a high-quality sample of 973 Americans who identify as Black or African American in which we randomize the levels of inter-group disparity in outcomes and the net effect on such adverse outcomes in two highly controversial contexts: pre-trial detention and traffic camera ticketing. The results suggest that respondents are willing to tolerate some level of disparity in outcomes in exchange for certain net improvements for their community. These results turn this debate from an abstract ethical argument into an evaluation of political feasibility and policy design based on empirics.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3657054.3657086
