Search

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a field that utilizes computing and often, data and statistics, intensively together to solve problems or make predictions. AI has been evolving with literally unbelievable speed over the past few years, and this has led to an increase in social, cultural, industrial, scientific, and governmental concerns about the ethical development and use of AI systems worldwide. The ASA has issued a statement on ethical statistical practice and AI (ASA, 2024), which echoes similar statements from other groups. Here we discuss the support for ethical statistical practice and ethical AI that has been established in long-standing human rights law and ethical practice standards for computing and statistics. There are multiple sources of support for ethical statistical practice and ethical AI deriving from these source documents, which are critical for strengthening the operationalization of the "Statement on Ethical AI for Statistics Practitioners". These resources are explicated for interested readers to utilize to guide their development and use of AI in, and through, their statistical practice., Comment: 10 pages; Preprint of submission to Proceedings of JSM 2024 Portland, OR

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in retail has significantly transformed the industry, enabling more personalized services and efficient operations. However, the rapid implementation of AI technologies raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding consumer privacy and fairness. This study aims to analyze the ethical challenges of AI applications in retail, explore ways retailers can implement AI technologies ethically while remaining competitive, and provide recommendations on ethical AI practices. A descriptive survey design was used to collect data from 300 respondents across major e-commerce platforms. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including percentages and mean scores. Findings shows a high level of concerns among consumers regarding the amount of personal data collected by AI-driven retail applications, with many expressing a lack of trust in how their data is managed. Also, fairness is another major issue, as a majority believe AI systems do not treat consumers equally, raising concerns about algorithmic bias. It was also found that AI can enhance business competitiveness and efficiency without compromising ethical principles, such as data privacy and fairness. Data privacy and transparency were highlighted as critical areas where retailers need to focus their efforts, indicating a strong demand for stricter data protection protocols and ongoing scrutiny of AI systems. The study concludes that retailers must prioritize transparency, fairness, and data protection when deploying AI systems. The study recommends ensuring transparency in AI processes, conducting regular audits to address biases, incorporating consumer feedback in AI development, and emphasizing consumer data privacy., Comment: 17 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and optimization hold substantial promise for improving the efficiency, reliability, and resilience of engineered systems. Due to the networked nature of many engineered systems, ethically deploying methodologies at this intersection poses challenges that are distinct from other AI settings, thus motivating the development of ethical guidelines tailored to AI-enabled optimization. This paper highlights the need to go beyond fairness-driven algorithms to systematically address ethical decisions spanning the stages of modeling, data curation, results analysis, and implementation of optimization-based decision support tools. Accordingly, this paper identifies ethical considerations required when deploying algorithms at the intersection of AI and optimization via case studies in power systems as well as supply chain and logistics. Rather than providing a prescriptive set of rules, this paper aims to foster reflection and awareness among researchers and encourage consideration of ethical implications at every step of the decision-making process.

Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (TAI) integrates ethics that align with human values, looking at their influence on AI behaviour and decision-making. Primarily dependent on self-assessment, TAI evaluation aims to ensure ethical standards and safety in AI development and usage. This paper reviews the current TAI evaluation methods in the literature and offers a classification, contributing to understanding self-assessment methods in this field., Comment: 6 pages, 1 figure, accepted for presentation at AIEB 2024: Workshop on Implementing AI Ethics Through a Behavioural Lens - ECAI, Octoebr 2024

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) have become a powerful tool for modeling complex relationships in large-scale datasets. However, their black-box nature poses ethical challenges. In certain situations, ensuring ethical predictions might require following specific partial monotonic constraints. However, certifying if an already-trained ANN is partially monotonic is challenging. Therefore, ANNs are often disregarded in some critical applications, such as credit scoring, where partial monotonicity is required. To address this challenge, this paper presents a novel algorithm (LipVor) that certifies if a black-box model, such as an ANN, is positive based on a finite number of evaluations. Therefore, as partial monotonicity can be stated as a positivity condition of the partial derivatives, the LipVor Algorithm can certify whether an already trained ANN is partially monotonic. To do so, for every positively evaluated point, the Lipschitzianity of the black-box model is used to construct a specific neighborhood where the function remains positive. Next, based on the Voronoi diagram of the evaluated points, a sufficient condition is stated to certify if the function is positive in the domain. Compared to prior methods, our approach is able to mathematically certify if an ANN is partially monotonic without needing constrained ANN's architectures or piece-wise linear activation functions. Therefore, LipVor could open up the possibility of using unconstrained ANN in some critical fields. Moreover, some other properties of an ANN, such as convexity, can be posed as positivity conditions, and therefore, LipVor could also be applied., Comment: 15 pages, 5 figures

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools into education has been a game-changer for teaching and assessment practices, bringing new opportunities, but also novel challenges which need to be dealt with. This paper presents the Comprehensive AI Assessment Framework (CAIAF), an evolved version of the AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) by Perkins, Furze, Roe, and MacVaugh, targeted toward the ethical integration of AI into educational assessments. This is where the CAIAF differs, as it incorporates stringent ethical guidelines, with clear distinctions based on educational levels, and advanced AI capabilities of real-time interactions and personalized assistance. The framework developed herein has a very intuitive use, mainly through the use of a color gradient that enhances the user-friendliness of the framework. Methodologically, the framework has been developed through the huge support of a thorough literature review and practical insight into the topic, becoming a dynamic tool to be used in different educational settings. The framework will ensure better learning outcomes, uphold academic integrity, and promote responsible use of AI, hence the need for this framework in modern educational practice., Comment: 13 Pages, 2 figures, 1 Framework

As artificial intelligence continues its unprecedented global expansion, accompanied by a proliferation of benefits, an increasing apprehension about the privacy and security implications of AI-enabled systems emerges. The pivotal question of effectively controlling AI development at both jurisdictional and organizational levels has become a prominent theme in contemporary discourse. While the European Parliament and Council have taken a decisive step by reaching a political agreement on the EU AI Act, the first comprehensive AI law, organizations still find it challenging to adapt to the fast-evolving AI landscape, lacking a universal tool for evaluating the privacy and security dimensions of their AI models and systems. In response to this critical challenge, this study conducts a systematic literature review spanning the years 2020 to 2023, with a primary focus on establishing a unified definition of key concepts in AI Ethics, particularly emphasizing the domains of privacy and security. Through the synthesis of knowledge extracted from the SLR, this study presents a conceptual framework tailored for privacy- and security-aware AI systems. This framework is designed to assist diverse stakeholders, including organizations, academic institutions, and governmental bodies, in both the development and critical assessment of AI systems. Essentially, the proposed framework serves as a guide for ethical decision-making, fostering an environment wherein AI is developed and utilized with a strong commitment to ethical principles. In addition, the study unravels the key issues and challenges surrounding the privacy and security dimensions, delineating promising avenues for future research, thereby contributing to the ongoing dialogue on the globalization and democratization of AI ethics., Comment: \c{opyright} Korobenko, D., Nikiforova, A., Rajesh, S. | ACM 2024. This paper has been accepted for publication in In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive Version of Record will be published in ACM DL

The main goal of this project is to create a new software artefact: a custom Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) for developers to discuss and solve ethical issues through AI engineering. This conversational agent will provide developers with practical application on (1) how to comply with legal frameworks which regard AI systems (like the EU AI Act~\cite{aiact} and GDPR~\cite{gdpr}) and (2) present alternate ethical perspectives to allow developers to understand and incorporate alternate moral positions. In this paper, we provide motivation for the need of such an agent, detail our idea and demonstrate a use case. The use of such a tool can allow practitioners to engineer AI solutions which meet legal requirements and satisfy diverse ethical perspectives.

This paper presents Social data and knowledge collective intelligence platform for TRaining Ethical AI Models (STREAM) to address the challenge of aligning AI models with human moral values, and to provide ethics datasets and knowledge bases to help promote AI models "follow good advice as naturally as a stream follows its course". By creating a comprehensive and representative platform that accurately mirrors the moral judgments of diverse groups including humans and AIs, we hope to effectively portray cultural and group variations, and capture the dynamic evolution of moral judgments over time, which in turn will facilitate the Establishment, Evaluation, Embedding, Embodiment, Ensemble, and Evolvement (6Es) of the moral capabilities of AI models. Currently, STREAM has already furnished a comprehensive collection of ethical scenarios, and amassed substantial moral judgment data annotated by volunteers and various popular Large Language Models (LLMs), collectively portraying the moral preferences and performances of both humans and AIs across a range of moral contexts. This paper will outline the current structure and construction of STREAM, explore its potential applications, and discuss its future prospects.

Whether and how data scientists, statisticians and modellers should be accountable for the AI systems they develop remains a controversial and highly debated topic, especially given the complexity of AI systems and the difficulties in comparing and synthesising competing claims arising from their deployment for data analysis. This paper proposes to address this issue by decreasing the opacity and heightening the accountability of decision making using AI systems, through the explicit acknowledgement of the statistical foundations that underpin their development and the ways in which these dictate how their results should be interpreted and acted upon by users. In turn, this enhances (1) the responsiveness of the models to feedback, (2) the quality and meaning of uncertainty on their outputs and (3) their transparency to evaluation. To exemplify this approach, we extend Posterior Belief Assessment to offer a route to belief ownership from complex and competing AI structures. We argue that this is a significant way to bring ethical considerations into mathematical reasoning, and to implement ethical AI in statistical practice. We demonstrate these ideas within the context of competing models used to advise the UK government on the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 during December 2021., Comment: 26 pages, 2 figures

In the diverse array of work investigating the nature of human values from psychology, philosophy and social sciences, there is a clear consensus that values guide behaviour. More recently, a recognition that values provide a means to engineer ethical AI has emerged. Indeed, Stuart Russell proposed shifting AI's focus away from simply ``intelligence'' towards intelligence ``provably aligned with human values''. This challenge -- the value alignment problem -- with others including an AI's learning of human values, aggregating individual values to groups, and designing computational mechanisms to reason over values, has energised a sustained research effort. Despite this, no formal, computational definition of values has yet been proposed. We address this through a formal conceptual framework rooted in the social sciences, that provides a foundation for the systematic, integrated and interdisciplinary investigation into how human values can support designing ethical AI.

In the last years, the raise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and its pervasiveness in our lives, has sparked a flourishing debate about the ethical principles that should lead its implementation and use in society. Driven by these concerns, we conduct a rapid review of several frameworks providing principles, guidelines, and/or tools to help practitioners in the development and deployment of Responsible AI (RAI) applications. We map each framework w.r.t. the different Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) phases discovering that most of these frameworks fall just in the Requirements Elicitation phase, leaving the other phases uncovered. Very few of these frameworks offer supporting tools for practitioners, and they are mainly provided by private companies. Our results reveal that there is not a "catching-all" framework supporting both technical and non-technical stakeholders in the implementation of real-world projects. Our findings highlight the lack of a comprehensive framework encompassing all RAI principles and all (SDLC) phases that could be navigated by users with different skill sets and with different goals.

While the increased use of AI in the manufacturing sector has been widely noted, there is little understanding on the risks that it may raise in a manufacturing organisation. Although various high level frameworks and definitions have been proposed to consolidate potential risks, practitioners struggle with understanding and implementing them. This lack of understanding exposes manufacturing to a multitude of risks, including the organisation, its workers, as well as suppliers and clients. In this paper, we explore and interpret the applicability of responsible, ethical, and trustworthy AI within the context of manufacturing. We then use a broadened adaptation of a machine learning lifecycle to discuss, through the use of illustrative examples, how each step may result in a given AI trustworthiness concern. We additionally propose a number of research questions to the manufacturing research community, in order to help guide future research so that the economic and societal benefits envisaged by AI in manufacturing are delivered safely and responsibly., Comment: Pre-print under peer-review

The CoCoMo model proposes a computational solution to the challenge of incorporating ethical and emotional intelligence considerations into AI systems, with the aim of creating AI agents that combine knowledge with compassion. To achieve this goal, CoCoMo prioritizes fairness, beneficence, non-maleficence, empathy, adaptability, transparency, and critical and exploratory thinking abilities. The model employs consciousness modeling, reinforcement learning, and prompt template formulation to support these desired traits. By incorporating ethical and emotional intelligence considerations, a generative AI model can potentially lead to improved fairness, reduced toxicity, and increased reliability., Comment: 10 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables

Building and implementing ethical AI systems that benefit the whole society is cost-intensive and a multi-faceted task fraught with potential problems. While computer science focuses mostly on the technical questions to mitigate social issues, social science addresses citizens' perceptions to elucidate social and political demands that influence the societal implementation of AI systems. Thus, in this study, we explore the salience of AI issues in the public with an emphasis on ethical criteria to investigate whether it is likely that ethical AI is actively requested by the population. Between May 2020 and April 2021, we conducted 15 surveys asking the German population about the most important AI-related issues (total of N=14,988 respondents). Our results show that the majority of respondents were not concerned with AI at all. However, it can be seen that general interest in AI and a higher educational level are predictive of some engagement with AI. Among those, who reported having thought about AI, specific applications (e.g., autonomous driving) were by far the most mentioned topics. Ethical issues are voiced only by a small subset of citizens with fairness, accountability, and transparency being the least mentioned ones. These have been identified in several ethical guidelines (including the EU Commission's proposal) as key elements for the development of ethical AI. The salience of ethical issues affects the behavioral intentions of citizens in the way that they 1) tend to avoid AI technology and 2) engage in public discussions about AI. We conclude that the low level of ethical implications may pose a serious problem for the actual implementation of ethical AI for the Common Good and emphasize that those who are presumably most affected by ethical issues of AI are especially unaware of ethical risks. Yet, once ethical AI is top of the mind, there is some potential for activism.