Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI

This article attempts to bridge the gap between widely discussed ethical principles of Human-centered AI (HCAI) and practical steps for effective governance. Since HCAI systems are developed and implemented in multiple organizational structures, I propose 15 recommendations at three levels of governance: team, organization, and industry. The recommendations are intended to increase the reliability, safety, and trustworthiness of HCAI systems: (1) reliable systems based on sound software engineering practices, (2) safety culture through business management strategies, and (3) trustworthy certification by independent oversight. Software engineering practices within teams include audit trails to enable analysis of failures, software engineering workflows, verification and validation testing, bias testing to enhance fairness, and explainable user interfaces. The safety culture within organizations comes from management strategies that include leadership commitment to safety, hiring and training oriented to safety, extensive reporting of failures and near misses, internal review boards for problems and future plans, and alignment with industry standard practices. The trustworthiness certification comes from industry-wide efforts that include government interventions and regulation, accounting firms conducting external audits, insurance companies compensating for failures, non-governmental and civil society organizations advancing design principles, and professional organizations and research institutes developing standards, policies, and novel ideas. The larger goal of effective governance is to limit the dangers and increase the benefits of HCAI to individuals, organizations, and society.

Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: Guidelines for Reliable, Safe, and Trustworthy Human-centered AI Systems

Human-Centered AI (HCAI) is a promising direction for designing AI systems that support human self-efficacy, promote creativity, clarify responsibility, and facilitate social participation. These human aspirations also encourage consideration of privacy, security, environmental protection, social justice, and human rights. This commentary reverses the current emphasis on algorithms and AI methods, by putting humans at the center of systems design thinking, in effect, a second Copernican Revolution. It offers three ideas: (1) a two-dimensional HCAI framework, which shows how it is possible to have both high levels of human control AND high levels of automation, (2) a shift from emulating humans to empowering people with a plea to shift language, imagery, and metaphors away from portrayals of intelligent autonomous teammates towards descriptions of powerful tool-like appliances and tele-operated devices, and (3) a three-level governance structure that describes how software engineering teams can develop more reliable systems, how managers can emphasize a safety culture across an organization, and how industry-wide certification can promote trustworthy HCAI systems. These ideas will be challenged by some, refined by others, extended to accommodate new technologies, and validated with quantitative and qualitative research. They offer a reframe -a chance to restart design discussions for products and services -which could bring greater benefits to individuals, families, communities, businesses, and society.

/pdf/human-centered-artificial-intelligence-three-fresh-ideas-4c0brz1psl.pdf

Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Three Fresh Ideas

To design and develop AI-based systems that users and the larger public can justifiably trust, one needs to understand how machine learning technologies impact trust. To guide the design and implementation of trusted AI-based systems, this paper provides a systematic approach to relate considerations about trust from the social sciences to trustworthiness technologies proposed for AI-based services and products. We start from the ABI+ (Ability, Benevolence, Integrity, Predictability) framework augmented with a recently proposed mapping of ABI+ on qualities of technologies that support trust. We consider four categories of trustworthiness technologies for machine learning, namely these for Fairness, Explainability, Auditability and Safety (FEAS) and discuss if and how these support the required qualities. Moreover, trust can be impacted throughout the life cycle of AI-based systems, and we therefore introduce the concept of Chain of Trust to discuss trustworthiness technologies in all stages of the life cycle. In so doing we establish the ways in which machine learning technologies support trusted AI-based systems. Finally, FEAS has obvious relations with known frameworks and therefore we relate FEAS to a variety of international 'principled AI' policy and technology frameworks that have emerged in recent years.

/pdf/the-relationship-between-trust-in-ai-and-trustworthy-machine-cq39htk5i1.pdf

The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies

To build AI-based systems that users and the public can justifiably trust one needs to understand how machine learning technologies impact trust put in these services. To guide technology developments, this paper provides a systematic approach to relate social science concepts of trust with the technologies used in AI-based services and products. We conceive trust as discussed in the ABI (Ability, Benevolence, Integrity) framework and use a recently proposed mapping of ABI on qualities of technologies. We consider four categories of machine learning technologies, namely these for Fairness, Explainability, Auditability and Safety (FEAS) and discuss if and how these possess the required qualities. Trust can be impacted throughout the life cycle of AI-based systems, and we introduce the concept of Chain of Trust to discuss technological needs for trust in different stages of the life cycle. FEAS has obvious relations with known frameworks and therefore we relate FEAS to a variety of international Principled AI policy and technology frameworks that have emerged in recent years.

The rapid spread of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has precipitated a rise in ethical and human rights-based frameworks intended to guide the development and use of these technologies. Despite the proliferation of these "AI principles," there has been little scholarly focus on understanding these efforts either individually or as contextualized within an expanding universe of principles with discernible trends.

To that end, this white paper and its associated data visualization compare the contents of thirty-six prominent AI principles documents side-by-side. This effort uncovered a growing consensus around eight key thematic trends: privacy, accountability, safety and security, transparency and explainability, fairness and non-discrimination, human control of technology, professional responsibility, and promotion of human values. Underlying this “normative core,” our analysis examined the forty-seven individual principles that make up the themes, detailing notable similarities and differences in interpretation found across the documents. In sharing these observations, it is our hope that policymakers, advocates, scholars, and others working to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms of AI will be better positioned to build on existing efforts and to push the fractured, global conversation on the future of AI toward consensus.

/pdf/principled-artificial-intelligence-mapping-consensus-in-y7tkpgx8on.pdf

Nele Achten

Papers

Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-based Approaches to Principles for AI