Explainability in AI Policies: A Critical Review of Communications, Reports, Regulations, and Standards in the EU, US, and UK

Nannini, Luca; Balayn, Agathe; Smith, Adam Leon

doi:10.1145/3593013.3594074

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ethicality of rejecting someone for credit using such “black box” models is questionable. Some jurisdictions, for example, the EU, have required that only explainable AI should be used for deciding on credit applications (Nannini et al , 2023). Uncertainties regarding what constitutes adequate explanation have led some to conclude that the regulation may not be effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, regulations impose compliance costs, and these costs can drain funds that otherwise would be invested in research and development and regulations can stifle innovation in this manner as well (Lim and Prakash, 2014). Since much of the benefits to society from emerging technology businesses stem from the innovations they introduce, regulators weigh the risk of stifling the innovations before they introduce regulations (Curfman and Redberg, 2020; Nannini et al , 2023; Ranchordás, 2015).…”

Section: Inadequate Guardrails In Emerging Technology Businessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strengthening ethical guardrails for emerging technology businesses

Chari

2023

JEET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make the case that ethical guardrails in emerging technology businesses are inadequate and to develop solutions to strengthen these guardrails. Design/methodology/approach Based on literature and first principles reasoning, the paper develops theoretical arguments about the fundamental purpose of ethical guardrails and how they evolve and then uses this along with the characteristics that distinguish emerging technology businesses to identify inadequacies in the ethical guardrails for emerging technology businesses and develop solutions to strengthen the guardrails. Findings The paper shows that the ethical guardrails for emerging technology businesses are inadequate and that the reasons for this are systematic. The paper also develops actionable recommendations to strengthen these guardrails. Originality/value The paper develops the novel argument that reasons for the inadequate ethical guardrails in emerging technology businesses are systematic and stem from the inadequacy of laws and regulations, inadequacy of boards and the focus of business executives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Inadequate Guardrails In Emerging Technology Businessesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening ethical guardrails for emerging technology businesses

Chari

2023

JEET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this interplay, the primary responsibility for the formulation of benchmarks is left to the auditing organisation and the only avenue available for external input in the process is the latter's discretion of using 'information from external sources' in its 'positive with comments' audit opinion (recital 16 DRPA). Eventually, benchmark disparities amongst different auditors may incentivise platforms to choose their assessors and auditors based on their benchmarks (easy or difficult, simple or complicated) and/or intensify institutional and organisational dynamics towards benchmark standardisation, a process that will be in itself extremely difficult to navigate and deliver [90].…”

Section: Whose Benchmarks? Whose Methods?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits

Terzis,

Veale,

Gaumann

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accepted in the Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. For almost a decade now, scholarship in and beyond the ACM FAccT community has been focusing on novel and innovative ways and methodologies to audit the functioning of algorithmic systems. Over the years, this research idea and technical project has matured enough to become a regulatory mandate. Today, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Online Safety Act (OSA) have established the framework within which technology corporations and (traditional) auditors will develop the ‘practice’ of algorithmic auditing thereby presaging how this ‘ecosystem’ will develop. In this paper, we systematically review the auditing provisions in the DSA and the OSA in light of observations from the emerging industry of algorithmic auditing. Who is likely to occupy this space? What are some political and ethical tensions that are likely to arise? How are the mandates of ‘independent auditing’ or ‘the evaluation of the societal context of an algorithmic function’ likely to play out in practice? By shaping the picture of the emerging political economy of algorithmic auditing, we draw attention to strategies and cultures of traditional auditors that risk eroding important regulatory pillars of the DSA and the OSA. Importantly, we warn that ambitious research ideas and technical projects of/for algorithmic auditing may end up crashed by the standardising grip of traditional auditors and/or diluted within a complex web of (sub-)contractual arrangements, diverse portfolios, and tight timelines.

show abstract

“…Therefore, a significant challenge remains: crafting explanations that are effectively usable by stakeholders with different backgrounds, while also gaining a deeper understanding of their specific needs and designing new explanations that are tailored to meet these needs [29].…”

Section: On the Insufficiency Of Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%