根据《欧盟人工智能法》默认的标准化和道德披露的三种途径

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Johann Laux , Sandra Wachter , Brent Mittelstadt
{"title":"根据《欧盟人工智能法》默认的标准化和道德披露的三种途径","authors":"Johann Laux ,&nbsp;Sandra Wachter ,&nbsp;Brent Mittelstadt","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Under its proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AIA’), the European Union seeks to develop harmonised standards involving abstract normative concepts such transparency, fairness, and accountability. Applying such concepts inevitably requires answering hard normative questions. Considering this challenge, we argue that there are three possible pathways for future standardisation under the AIA. First, European standard-setting organisations (‘SSOs’) could answer hard normative questions themselves. This approach would raise concerns about its democratic legitimacy. Standardisation is a technical discourse and tends to exclude non-expert stakeholders and the public at large. Second, instead of passing their own normative judgments, SSOs could track the normative consensus they find available. By analysing the standard-setting history of one major SSO, we show that such consensus tracking has historically been its pathway of choice. If standardisation under the AIA took the same route, we demonstrate how this would lead to a false sense of safety as the process is not infallible. Consensus tracking would furthermore push the need to solve unavoidable normative problems down the line. Instead of regulators, AI developers and/or users could define what, for example, fairness requires. By the institutional design of its AIA, the European Commission would have essentially kicked the ‘AI Ethics’ can down the road. We thus suggest a third pathway which aims to avoid the pitfalls of the previous two: SSOs should create standards which require “ethical disclosure by default.” These standards will specify minimum technical testing, documentation, and public reporting requirements to shift ethical decision-making to local stakeholders and limit provider discretion in answering hard normative questions in the development of AI products and services. Our proposed pathway is about putting the right information in the hands of the people with the legitimacy to make complex normative decisions at a local, context-sensitive level.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"53 ","pages":"Article 105957"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000244/pdfft?md5=04b22c11bc630a648f5dc35efe33f508&pid=1-s2.0-S0267364924000244-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three pathways for standardisation and ethical disclosure by default under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act\",\"authors\":\"Johann Laux ,&nbsp;Sandra Wachter ,&nbsp;Brent Mittelstadt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105957\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Under its proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AIA’), the European Union seeks to develop harmonised standards involving abstract normative concepts such transparency, fairness, and accountability. Applying such concepts inevitably requires answering hard normative questions. Considering this challenge, we argue that there are three possible pathways for future standardisation under the AIA. First, European standard-setting organisations (‘SSOs’) could answer hard normative questions themselves. This approach would raise concerns about its democratic legitimacy. Standardisation is a technical discourse and tends to exclude non-expert stakeholders and the public at large. Second, instead of passing their own normative judgments, SSOs could track the normative consensus they find available. By analysing the standard-setting history of one major SSO, we show that such consensus tracking has historically been its pathway of choice. If standardisation under the AIA took the same route, we demonstrate how this would lead to a false sense of safety as the process is not infallible. Consensus tracking would furthermore push the need to solve unavoidable normative problems down the line. Instead of regulators, AI developers and/or users could define what, for example, fairness requires. By the institutional design of its AIA, the European Commission would have essentially kicked the ‘AI Ethics’ can down the road. We thus suggest a third pathway which aims to avoid the pitfalls of the previous two: SSOs should create standards which require “ethical disclosure by default.” These standards will specify minimum technical testing, documentation, and public reporting requirements to shift ethical decision-making to local stakeholders and limit provider discretion in answering hard normative questions in the development of AI products and services. Our proposed pathway is about putting the right information in the hands of the people with the legitimacy to make complex normative decisions at a local, context-sensitive level.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":\"53 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105957\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000244/pdfft?md5=04b22c11bc630a648f5dc35efe33f508&pid=1-s2.0-S0267364924000244-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000244\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000244","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据其拟议的《人工智能法》(AIA),欧盟试图制定涉及透明度、公平性和问责制等抽象规范概念的统一标准。应用这些概念不可避免地需要回答艰涩的规范性问题。考虑到这一挑战,我们认为,在 AIA 框架下,未来的标准化有三种可能的途径。首先,欧洲标准制定组织('SSOs')可以自己回答硬性规范问题。这种方法会引起人们对其民主合法性的担忧。标准化是一种技术性话语,往往会将非专业利益相关者和广大公众排除在外。其次,标准组织可以跟踪他们所发现的标准共识,而不是通过自己的规范性判断。通过分析一个主要 SSO 的标准制定历史,我们发现这种共识跟踪历来是其选择的途径。如果 AIA 下的标准化工作也采取同样的途径,我们将证明这将如何导致一种虚假的安全感,因为这一过程并非无懈可击。此外,共识追踪还将进一步推高解决不可避免的规范性问题的需求。人工智能开发者和/或用户可以代替监管者来定义公平性等要求。通过其 AIA 的制度设计,欧盟委员会基本上已经把 "人工智能伦理 "问题抛到了九霄云外。因此,我们提出了第三种途径,旨在避免前两种途径的缺陷:SSO 应制定标准,要求 "默认情况下的道德披露"。这些标准将规定最低限度的技术测试、文档和公开报告要求,以便将伦理决策权转移给当地利益相关者,并限制提供商在回答人工智能产品和服务开发过程中棘手的规范性问题时的自由裁量权。我们建议的途径是将正确的信息交到具有合法性的人手中,让他们在当地根据具体情况做出复杂的规范性决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three pathways for standardisation and ethical disclosure by default under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act

Under its proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AIA’), the European Union seeks to develop harmonised standards involving abstract normative concepts such transparency, fairness, and accountability. Applying such concepts inevitably requires answering hard normative questions. Considering this challenge, we argue that there are three possible pathways for future standardisation under the AIA. First, European standard-setting organisations (‘SSOs’) could answer hard normative questions themselves. This approach would raise concerns about its democratic legitimacy. Standardisation is a technical discourse and tends to exclude non-expert stakeholders and the public at large. Second, instead of passing their own normative judgments, SSOs could track the normative consensus they find available. By analysing the standard-setting history of one major SSO, we show that such consensus tracking has historically been its pathway of choice. If standardisation under the AIA took the same route, we demonstrate how this would lead to a false sense of safety as the process is not infallible. Consensus tracking would furthermore push the need to solve unavoidable normative problems down the line. Instead of regulators, AI developers and/or users could define what, for example, fairness requires. By the institutional design of its AIA, the European Commission would have essentially kicked the ‘AI Ethics’ can down the road. We thus suggest a third pathway which aims to avoid the pitfalls of the previous two: SSOs should create standards which require “ethical disclosure by default.” These standards will specify minimum technical testing, documentation, and public reporting requirements to shift ethical decision-making to local stakeholders and limit provider discretion in answering hard normative questions in the development of AI products and services. Our proposed pathway is about putting the right information in the hands of the people with the legitimacy to make complex normative decisions at a local, context-sensitive level.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
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