Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation
0
👀
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The research paper discusses the role of human oversight in regulating the decision-making process of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems.
- It explores how human oversight can reinforce the accountability of AI systems' users and better protect individuals affected by AI-based decisions.
- The paper examines the EU's AI Act, which imposes obligations on providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, including the introduction of human oversight tools throughout the AI system lifecycle.
- It highlights the importance of considering the placement of humans in the AI decision-making process, as the regulatory governance of AI can vary depending on whether it is the law or technical standards that define the contours of human oversight.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses how human oversight measures can be used to regulate the decision-making process of AI systems. This can be done in different ways, such as by having a human supervise the system or by designing the AI system to enable such supervision.
The EU's AI Act requires providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems to implement human oversight tools throughout the AI system's lifecycle. This helps ensure the accountability of AI users and better protects individuals affected by AI-based decisions, as they can request a review of the decision.
The paper highlights that the regulatory governance of AI can vary depending on whether the law or technical standards define the details of human oversight. This is an important consideration, as it can affect the nature, content, and scope of the regulatory oversight.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines how the adoption of human oversight measures can regulate the decision-making process of AI systems. This can be achieved by placing a human in charge of supervising the system or by designing the AI system to enable such supervision.
The EU's AI Act imposes obligations on providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems, including the introduction of human oversight tools throughout the AI system's lifecycle. This reinforces the accountability of AI users and better protects individuals affected by AI-based decisions, as they can request a review of the decision.
The paper highlights that the regulatory governance of AI can vary depending on whether the law or technical standards define the contours of human oversight. This is a critical consideration, as it can affect the nature, content, and scope of the regulatory oversight.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises the important question of the placement of humans in the AI decision-making process, acknowledging that the regulatory governance of AI can differ depending on whether the law or technical standards define the specifics of human oversight. This is a valid concern, as the effectiveness and implementation of human oversight can vary significantly based on the regulatory approach.
While the paper provides a comprehensive overview of the EU's AI Act and its human oversight requirements, it would have been valuable to explore potential limitations or challenges in the practical implementation of these measures. Additionally, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential trade-offs or unintended consequences that may arise from different regulatory approaches to human oversight.
Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the role of humans in the governance of AI systems. However, further research and critical analysis are needed to fully understand the implications and ensure the most effective regulatory framework for human oversight of AI.
Conclusion
The research paper highlights the importance of human oversight in regulating the decision-making process of AI systems. It examines how the adoption of human oversight measures can reinforce the accountability of AI users and better protect individuals affected by AI-based decisions, as exemplified by the EU's AI Act.
The paper emphasizes the significance of considering the placement of humans in the AI decision-making process, as the regulatory governance of AI can vary depending on whether the law or technical standards define the contours of human oversight. This is a crucial consideration that can impact the nature, content, and scope of the regulatory oversight.
While the paper provides a comprehensive overview of the EU's approach, it would benefit from further exploration of the potential limitations and challenges in the practical implementation of human oversight measures. Nonetheless, the paper contributes to the ongoing discussion on the effective governance of AI systems, underscoring the need for a balanced and thoughtful approach to the role of humans in the decision-making process.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
👀
0
Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation
Marion Ho-Dac (UA, CDEP), Baptiste Martinez (UA, CDEP)
The adoption of human oversight measures makes it possible to regulate, to varying degrees and in different ways, the decision-making process of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, for example by placing a human being in charge of supervising the system and, upstream, by developing the AI system to enable such supervision. Within the global governance of AI, the requirement for human oversight is embodied in several regulatory formats, within a diversity of normative sources. On the one hand, it reinforces the accountability of AI systems' users (for example, by requiring them to carry out certain checks) and, on the other hand, it better protects the individuals affected by the AI-based decision (for example, by allowing them to request a review of the decision). In the European context, the AI Act imposes obligations on providers of high-risk AI systems (and to some extent also on professional users of these systems, known as deployers), including the introduction of human oversight tools throughout the life cycle of AI systems, including by design (and their implementation by deployers). The EU legislator is therefore going much further than in the past in spelling out the legal requirement for human oversight. But it does not intend to provide for all implementation details; it calls on standardisation to technically flesh out this requirement (and more broadly all the requirements of section 2 of chapter III) on the basis of article 40 of the AI Act. In this multi-level regulatory context, the question of the place of humans in the AI decision-making process should be given particular attention. Indeed, depending on whether it is the law or the technical standard that sets the contours of human oversight, the regulatory governance of AI is not the same: its nature, content and scope are different. This analysis is at the heart of the contribution made (or to be made) by legal experts to the central reflection on the most appropriate regulatory governance -- in terms of both its institutional format and its substance -- to ensure the effectiveness of human oversight and AI trustworthiness.
Read more7/26/2024
0
On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Sarah Sterz, Kevin Baum, Sebastian Biewer, Holger Hermanns, Anne Lauber-Ronsberg, Philip Meinel, Markus Langer
Human oversight is currently discussed as a potential safeguard to counter some of the negative aspects of high-risk AI applications. This prompts a critical examination of the role and conditions necessary for what is prominently termed effective or meaningful human oversight of these systems. This paper investigates effective human oversight by synthesizing insights from psychological, legal, philosophical, and technical domains. Based on the claim that the main objective of human oversight is risk mitigation, we propose a viable understanding of effectiveness in human oversight: for human oversight to be effective, the oversight person has to have (a) sufficient causal power with regard to the system and its effects, (b) suitable epistemic access to relevant aspects of the situation, (c) self-control, and (d) fitting intentions for their role. Furthermore, we argue that this is equivalent to saying that an oversight person is effective if and only if they are morally responsible and have fitting intentions. Against this backdrop, we suggest facilitators and inhibitors of effectiveness in human oversight when striving for practical applicability. We discuss factors in three domains, namely, the technical design of the system, individual factors of oversight persons, and the environmental circumstances in which they operate. Finally, this paper scrutinizes the upcoming AI Act of the European Union -- in particular Article 14 on Human Oversight -- as an exemplary regulatory framework in which we study the practicality of our understanding of effective human oversight. By analyzing the provisions and implications of the European AI Act proposal, we pinpoint how far that proposal aligns with our analyses regarding effective human oversight as well as how it might get enriched by our conceptual understanding of effectiveness in human oversight.
Read more5/8/2024
🏋️
2
The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview
Nuno Sousa e Silva
This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. A definition of key concepts follows, and then the material and territorial scope, as well as the timing of application, are analyzed. Although the Regulation does not explicitly set out principles, the main ideas of fairness, accountability, transparency, and equity in AI underly a set of rules of the regulation. This is discussed before looking at the ill-defined set of forbidden AI practices (manipulation and e exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring, biometric identification and classification, and predictive policing). It is highlighted that those rules deal with behaviors rather than AI systems. The qualification and regulation of high-risk AI systems are tackled, alongside the obligation of transparency for certain systems, the regulation of general-purpose models, and the rules on certification, supervision, and sanctions. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose of promoting responsible innovation within the European Union and beyond its borders.
Read more9/4/2024
🏋️
0
Taking Training Seriously: Human Guidance and Management-Based Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
Cary Coglianese, Colton R. Crum
Fervent calls for more robust governance of the harms associated with artificial intelligence (AI) are leading to the adoption around the world of what regulatory scholars have called a management-based approach to regulation. Recent initiatives in the United States and Europe, as well as the adoption of major self-regulatory standards by the International Organization for Standardization, share in common a core management-based paradigm. These management-based initiatives seek to motivate an increase in human oversight of how AI tools are trained and developed. Refinements and systematization of human-guided training techniques will thus be needed to fit within this emerging era of management-based regulatory paradigm. If taken seriously, human-guided training can alleviate some of the technical and ethical pressures on AI, boosting AI performance with human intuition as well as better addressing the needs for fairness and effective explainability. In this paper, we discuss the connection between the emerging management-based regulatory frameworks governing AI and the need for human oversight during training. We broadly cover some of the technical components involved in human-guided training and then argue that the kinds of high-stakes use cases for AI that appear of most concern to regulators should lean more on human-guided training than on data-only training. We hope to foster a discussion between legal scholars and computer scientists involving how to govern a domain of technology that is vast, heterogenous, and dynamic in its applications and risks.
Read more6/28/2024