From transparency to accountability of intelligent systems: Moving beyond aspirations

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Data & policy Pub Date : 2022-02-18 DOI:10.1017/dap.2021.37
Rebecca Williams, Richard Cloete, Jennifer Cobbe, C. Cottrill, P. Edwards, Milan Markovic, Iman Naja, Frances Ryan, Jatinder Singh, Wei Pang
{"title":"From transparency to accountability of intelligent systems: Moving beyond aspirations","authors":"Rebecca Williams, Richard Cloete, Jennifer Cobbe, C. Cottrill, P. Edwards, Milan Markovic, Iman Naja, Frances Ryan, Jatinder Singh, Wei Pang","doi":"10.1017/dap.2021.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A number of governmental and nongovernmental organizations have made significant efforts to encourage the development of artificial intelligence in line with a series of aspirational concepts such as transparency, interpretability, explainability, and accountability. The difficulty at present, however, is that these concepts exist at a fairly abstract level, whereas in order for them to have the tangible effects desired they need to become more concrete and specific. This article undertakes precisely this process of concretisation, mapping how the different concepts interrelate and what in particular they each require in order to move from being high-level aspirations to detailed and enforceable requirements. We argue that the key concept in this process is accountability, since unless an entity can be held accountable for compliance with the other concepts, and indeed more generally, those concepts cannot do the work required of them. There is a variety of taxonomies of accountability in the literature. However, at the core of each account appears to be a sense of “answerability”; a need to explain or to give an account. It is this ability to call an entity to account which provides the impetus for each of the other concepts and helps us to understand what they must each require.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2021.37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Abstract A number of governmental and nongovernmental organizations have made significant efforts to encourage the development of artificial intelligence in line with a series of aspirational concepts such as transparency, interpretability, explainability, and accountability. The difficulty at present, however, is that these concepts exist at a fairly abstract level, whereas in order for them to have the tangible effects desired they need to become more concrete and specific. This article undertakes precisely this process of concretisation, mapping how the different concepts interrelate and what in particular they each require in order to move from being high-level aspirations to detailed and enforceable requirements. We argue that the key concept in this process is accountability, since unless an entity can be held accountable for compliance with the other concepts, and indeed more generally, those concepts cannot do the work required of them. There is a variety of taxonomies of accountability in the literature. However, at the core of each account appears to be a sense of “answerability”; a need to explain or to give an account. It is this ability to call an entity to account which provides the impetus for each of the other concepts and helps us to understand what they must each require.
从智能系统的透明度到问责制:超越期望
摘要许多政府和非政府组织做出了重大努力,鼓励人工智能的发展,这符合一系列令人向往的概念,如透明性、可解释性、可说明性和问责制。然而,目前的困难在于,这些概念存在于一个相当抽象的层面,而为了使它们产生所需的实际效果,它们需要变得更加具体和具体。本文正是进行了这个具体化的过程,绘制了不同概念如何相互关联,以及它们各自的具体要求,以便从高层愿望转变为详细和可执行的要求。我们认为,这一过程中的关键概念是问责制,因为除非一个实体能够对遵守其他概念负责,而且实际上更普遍地说,否则这些概念就无法完成所需的工作。文献中有各种各样的责任分类法。然而,每个账户的核心似乎都是一种“责任感”;需要解释或说明。正是这种要求实体承担责任的能力为其他每个概念提供了动力,并帮助我们理解它们各自的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信