Exclusivity and Paternalism in the public governance of explainable AI

Perry Keller; Archibald Drake

Exclusivity and Paternalism in the public governance of explainable AI

Perry Keller, Archibald Drake

Laws

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference paper › peer-review

65 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this comment, we address the apparent exclusivity and paternalism of goal and standard setting for explainable AI and its implications for the public governance of AI. We argue that the widening use of AI decision-making, including the development of autonomous systems, not only poses widely-discussed risks for human autonomy in itself, but is also the subject of a standard-setting process that is remarkably closed to effective public contestation. The implications of this turn in governance for democratic decision-making in Britain have also yet to be fully appreciated. As the governance of AI gathers pace, one of the major tasks will be ensure not only that AI systems are technically ‘explainable’ but that, in a fuller sense, the relevant standards and rules are contestable and that governing institutions and processes are open to democratic contestability.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Computer Law & Security Review
Subtitle of host publication	The International Journal of Technology Law and Practice
Publication status	Accepted/In press - 2020

Keywords

artificial intelligence; explainability; trust; governance

Access to Document

Keller Drake - Exclusion and paternalism in the public governance of explainable AI - 4 Sept 2020Submitted manuscript, 127 KB

Cite this

@inbook{e424f87d247e4449a880f21354f7625d,

title = "Exclusivity and Paternalism in the public governance of explainable AI",

abstract = "In this comment, we address the apparent exclusivity and paternalism of goal and standard setting for explainable AI and its implications for the public governance of AI. We argue that the widening use of AI decision-making, including the development of autonomous systems, not only poses widely-discussed risks for human autonomy in itself, but is also the subject of a standard-setting process that is remarkably closed to effective public contestation. The implications of this turn in governance for democratic decision-making in Britain have also yet to be fully appreciated. As the governance of AI gathers pace, one of the major tasks will be ensure not only that AI systems are technically {\textquoteleft}explainable{\textquoteright} but that, in a fuller sense, the relevant standards and rules are contestable and that governing institutions and processes are open to democratic contestability. ",

keywords = "artificial intelligence; explainability; trust; governance",

author = "Perry Keller and Archibald Drake",

year = "2020",

language = "English",

booktitle = "Computer Law & Security Review",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Exclusivity and Paternalism in the public governance of explainable AI

AU - Keller, Perry

AU - Drake, Archibald

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - In this comment, we address the apparent exclusivity and paternalism of goal and standard setting for explainable AI and its implications for the public governance of AI. We argue that the widening use of AI decision-making, including the development of autonomous systems, not only poses widely-discussed risks for human autonomy in itself, but is also the subject of a standard-setting process that is remarkably closed to effective public contestation. The implications of this turn in governance for democratic decision-making in Britain have also yet to be fully appreciated. As the governance of AI gathers pace, one of the major tasks will be ensure not only that AI systems are technically ‘explainable’ but that, in a fuller sense, the relevant standards and rules are contestable and that governing institutions and processes are open to democratic contestability.

AB - In this comment, we address the apparent exclusivity and paternalism of goal and standard setting for explainable AI and its implications for the public governance of AI. We argue that the widening use of AI decision-making, including the development of autonomous systems, not only poses widely-discussed risks for human autonomy in itself, but is also the subject of a standard-setting process that is remarkably closed to effective public contestation. The implications of this turn in governance for democratic decision-making in Britain have also yet to be fully appreciated. As the governance of AI gathers pace, one of the major tasks will be ensure not only that AI systems are technically ‘explainable’ but that, in a fuller sense, the relevant standards and rules are contestable and that governing institutions and processes are open to democratic contestability.

KW - artificial intelligence; explainability; trust; governance

M3 - Conference paper

BT - Computer Law & Security Review

ER -

Exclusivity and Paternalism in the public governance of explainable AI

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this