How do concepts like intent, discrimination, and bias apply to an Artificial Intelligence agent? Background I work at a financial institution in the United States and have been researching the regulatory impacts of Artificial Intelligence recently - specifically the simple purpose-specific systems we have today like Alexa, Siri, or the AI that navigates your Tesla when you switch on autopilot. Based on some googling [1] [2], the current standards seem to be that there aren't a lot of specific regulations that apply to the AI agent (with the exception of self-driving cars), but the normal regulations that apply when using a human agent would apply if you substitute an AI-based decision process. The top answer on a related topic here on StackExchange seems to support the idea that the regulations applied to the human apply to the AI agent as well (at least in Hong Kong). We're currently shying away to research into the legal implications of AIs that can learn any task, much like a human. These are sometimes referred to as Artificial General Intelligence (AGIs) and the most aggressive estimate I've seen in my research places them emerging sometime in the next 100 - 200 years. A problem for future generations! The Question: This raises a couple of questions in my mind about a couple of legal concepts that have clear definitions when applied to a human or certain kinds of AI, but get fuzzy with other ones. Specifically: How do you determine an AI agent's intent? How can you tell if an AI agent is biased in its decisions? How would the concept of discrimination apply to an AI agent? How would you prosecute it? A Specific Example: For instance, take the anti-discrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). In the case of a decision-tree based AI agent discrimination is obvious - if you add in a rule that makes different decisions based on race, gender, age, or other protected factors you have a discriminatory model. In the case of a statistically driven Machine Learning model, this is less obvious. For instance, a neural network based model could accept address data as part of its decision. After examining hundreds of thousands of credit applications, the machine learning model could potentially derive information about income distribution from address or similar fields and end up discriminating against applicants that match certain traits. In this case you accept no information on age, sex, or ethnicity but still discriminate based on these factors since the model found some problematic trends in the data that it was trained on. Recap: With this in mind, my questions are: What are your thoughts on regulations that refer to intent or bias as they relate to AI agents - particularly ones that don't operate on explicitly defined rules? Is there any precedent in this space that we could look to to guide decisions on AI risk? Does anyone have thoughts on where regulation in this space might head? Update (7/18) I've removed the portions of this question with a technical lean and posted a question about the technical aspects of detecting and fixing a discriminatory model to ai.stackexchange.
Firstly, true artificial intelligence does not yet exist. The term "artificial intelligence" is a bit of a buzzword, used to refer to things like neural networks and decision trees, which are really just elaborate statistical calculations. They do not have a "mind of their own" by any stretch of the imagination, though it is possible to make them appear as if they do, in the time-tested tradition of constructing convincing but simple automatons that goes back centuries. Once true AI appears and begins to act as an independent agent in the public sphere, likely new legislation will be produced to address it, so our speculation based on the present situation is unlikely to be proven accurate in the end. The law will tend to view AI as a tool or calculation of the human operators, therefore liability for whatever damage or offense the AI causes rests with the operators. This is little different from prosecuting the person who pulls the trigger, rather than the gun. But two caveats apply: Because computer systems are often very complex, it is easy for operators to argue that any harm is unintentional. Especially machine learning approaches that have become popular recently, which often produce unpredictable or unintuitive, if not downright non-deterministic results (indeed, they are often employed to find solutions that intuition could not), are very complex. While understanding the principles of their operation is quite easy for a technical person, predicting the exact result for any given input is much harder, due to sheer volume of numerical calculation involved. So it is hard to prove any outcome is intentional, unless someone went on record stating the intent. Because such systems are often implemented by an organization rather than individuals, it is often the organization that ends up being liable, not the programmer. As for your specific example, it is actually not that important whether the model discriminates explicitly or implicitly. Even a model that makes decision completely at random can still be considered discriminatory in certain settings. This is because US law has a concept called disparate impact, where impact on a protected group alone can be sufficient to argue a policy is discriminative. Is there any precedent in this space that we could look to to guide decisions on AI risk? I think autopilots (both planes and cars) are a good example. Another one is automated fraud detection and credit scoring used by financial and insurance industries. In particular you would want to look at disputes where the client disagrees with the results from the statistical model. By my argument that what is commonly referred to as AI is not really AI but dumb software, it is worth looking at disputes including much simpler devices: For example the controversy surrounding the reliability of breathalyzer devices and their admissibility in court. Does anyone have thoughts on where regulation in this space might head? In the immediate future, I think it would be nice to see more accountability from programmers and designers. For example, programs which can cause significant damage (like car autopilots or forensic tools such as breathalyzers) should be required to pass more stringent QC than usual, and they should be produced by specially trained, qualified and certified programmers. I think it is also too easy for corporations to escape responsibility from harm caused by their software tools by just shrugging and claiming it was an accident. Ultimately no one can guarantee a complex program will always perform 100% as intended, but that is not an excuse to write very sub standard programs and have inadequate testing. Thus courts should be more skeptical when an "AI" like a self-driving car causes an accident and the company claims it's not their fault. As complexity and ubiquity of such "AI" systems in everyday life grows, accidents due to software bugs or design issues should become more and more common, so I expect that eventually legislation will be produced to address them (or alternatively, lobbying will overwhelm the process sufficiently so as to bring about a sort of unregulated cyber-anarchy for big tech corporations).
Isn’t this discrimination since nationals do not have to apply? Yes it is discrimination. But that does not make it illegal. In fact discrimination is in general legal unless it is based on some characteristic which is specifically forbidden as a basis for discrimination (e.g. race). And in general, all of the countries in the world allow and enforce discrimination based on nationality; for example non-nationals will not be able to run for Head of State (and additional restrictions may apply). The EU members allowing similar rights to the citizens of other EU countries is the exception, not the rule, and once the UK stops being bound by EU treaties it can impose its own legal system on non-nationals. And while EU treaties give lots of rights to EU member-countries citizens, they still allow for discrimination based on nationality (for example you cannot run for Prime Minister or MP of Spain as a foreign EU resident). Isn’t the UK Government breaking the law? This could go against EU treaties, but the point is that the UK will no longer need to comply with them. is the UK Government responsible for the harm and distress caused to the individual health and mental wellbeing? No, the UK Government is not responsible if you do not like its laws to the point that it affects your health. Is there any ground for challenging this scheme legality in court? Unlikely. In any case it will not be because you are frightened by it, any challenge would be in the grounds that the government actions act against some other UK law. For example, if the decision to make such a list was made by the Executive but it contradicts some law approved by the Parliament. If this list does not contradict any law, then there are no grounds for challenging it. Would there a breach of my human rights if I was not to apply for settle status and then subsequentially got deported (taken away from my children, home, business, etc.)? How about if I was refused, re-entry or access to public services (NHS for example)? If you do not apply you will not have any evidence that you were settled, and the government could legitimately believe that you are irregularly in the country and try to expel you; you probably would have an opportunity to prove that you were settled even if you were not in the list but that could be way slower, more expensive, riskier and stressful than just registering now. Get this clear: that settled person list is to help you to show that you were a UK resident before Brexit and to give you the protections that are being negotiated between the UK and the EU for expatriates. Probably you could choose not to enlist, but it would work against you.
Excluding "ridiculously unacceptable conditions", it is legal to have "non-uniform" contract terms (where a company treats different classes of individuals differently), provided that the basis for distinction is not statutorily prohibited (race, religion, age, sex... depending on jurisdiction). There is a extremely slim chance that apparently legal income-discrimination can be a proxy for another form of illegal discrimination. However, "ridiculously unacceptable conditions" are unlikely to be found to be enforceable, regardless of any demographic properties associated with the condition. E.g. a clause requiring the surrender of a first-born female child would be unenforceable as "unconscionable". The specific circumstances surrounding such a finding by the court can't easily be summarized, since it relies heavily on prior case law, statutes, and legislative declarations. The underlying premise behind using the doctrine of unconsionability in such a case is that the clause in question is not something that a reasonable person would agree to, but they have no power to disagree. In the US, the case Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture is the leading case on this view. The clause in question was about a payment plan for furniture and the condition that no furniture could be paid off until all of it was. The consequence of the clause was that all of the furniture could be repossessed if any payment was missed, regardless of how much had already been paid. Various factors went into the court's ruling (that the condition was unenforceable), such as "absence of meaningful choice", "terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party", :gross inequality of bargaining power". In the circumstance that you allude to, it is not obvious that the courts would follow Williams in making their ruling – it would depend on the extent to which one could reasonable conclude that the customer understood and freely accepted the term. There are upper limits on what a court can enforce, so a contract requiring a party to commit suicide would be utterly unenforceable (in most countries), and a contract requiring a party to break the law would be likewise.
&quot;Discrimination&quot; is in some way treating people differently from other people. Much discrimination is a sound idea. Not letting someone fly a plane who does not have pilot training is discrimination, but not a bad kind. So is not allowing someone to do surgery who has not trained as a doctor. Unlawful discrimination is discrimination that a particular law in a particular country declares to be forbidden. Different countries have different laws for what kinds of discrimination is unlawful under what circumstances. Discrimination on a basis not forbidden by law is legal, even if immoral. For example, a restaurant could, in most if not all countries, ban left-handed people from being served there. This might be immoral, but would not be illegal, because no law has made it illegal. Commonly, discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or political opinion is unlawful. In some jurisdictions discrimination on the basis of disability is unlawful. Other bases may be unlawful in some places. There may be exceptions. Employment discrimination may not have the same standards as housing discrimination, and admission to public places or ability to run for public office may be different yet. All this will vary based on the particular laws of particular places. Note that some of these protected classes are things about which people have no choice, such as sex and national origin, others are matters of choice such as religion and political opinion. Laws may create a protected class on any basis. Note also that many things about which people have little or no choice, such as height, handedness, or intelligence, are not protected categories in most places. To the best of my understanding being vaccinated or not is not a protected class in most if not all of Europe, so legal distinctions may be made based on vaccination status. In such jurisdictions, discrimination in favor of those who are vaccinated is legal, although some may think it wrong. A few US states have made it unlawful to restrict various public or private services or access to places on the basis of vaccination status. I am not aware of any country in Europe that has such a law.
Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230, but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)
This may be allowed, or prohibited, it all depends. At the federal level, there is no specific prohibition against asking this question, however it may be found to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if the result discriminates in employment based on race. At the state level (in Washington), WAC 162-12-140 gives examples of fair and unfair pre-employment inquiries. W.r.t. arrests, it deems such questions as fair under limited circumstances: Because statistical studies regarding arrests have shown a disparate impact on some racial and ethnic minorities, and an arrest by itself is not a reliable indication of criminal behavior, inquiries concerning arrests must include whether charges are still pending, have been dismissed, or led to conviction of a crime involving behavior that would adversely affect job performance, and the arrest occurred within the last ten years. Exempt from this rule are law enforcement agencies and state agencies, school districts, businesses and other organizations that have a direct responsibility for the supervision, care, or treatment of children, mentally ill persons, developmentally disabled persons, or other vulnerable adults. See RCW 43.20A.710; 43.43.830 through 43.43.842; and RCW 72.23.035. In other words, asking just about arrests is unfair and illegal. You can look up the law of other states here. In California, you can't ask about an arrest until late in the process as part of an individualized investigation, and can't be an automatic &quot;arrest? No job!&quot; rule. In contrast, Arkansas has no prohibition against arrest as job disqualifier.
"Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights" on the website you linked to is very clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights only means the EU institutions can't discriminate based on age, and that EU law is not allowed to be age discriminatory. It doesn't mean that individual acts of age discrimination are illegal: In contrast, the provision in Article 21(1) does not create any power to enact anti-discrimination laws in these areas of Member State or private action, nor does it lay down a sweeping ban of discrimination in such wide-ranging areas. Instead, it only addresses discriminations by the institutions and bodies of the Union themselves, when exercising powers conferred under the Treaties, and by Member States only when they are implementing Union law. The practice of youth and senior discounts is older than the charter of fundamental rights. The charter will be interpreted in the light of continuity, it definitely wasn't the intention to outlaw price discrimination. There are specific laws that make price discrimination based on certain principles legal, e.g. UK equality act: Age discrimination - when discrimination is allowed in the provision of goods or services
The relevant eu article is article 102 tfeu which forbids those who are in a dominant market position from abusing that position (e.g. price fixing, discriminatory practices as in this case when google made their products more likely to appear in a search than competitors). The case summary is http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/SUM/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0236&amp;qid=1498637439183#SM The statement of the commission declaring the fine is http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm