AI Collective Responsibility – Calling all Nations

In the past few years, we’ve witnessed the explosive growth of artificial intelligence (AI) and the growing outcry for AI ethics.  While the potential benefits of AI are immense, so are the ethical, social, and economic challenges it presents.  In these early stages of formulating AI ethics, the concept of collective responsibility emerges as a common requisite for insuring and safeguarding universal beneficial AI.

The results of an online search for AI ethical guidelines underscores the diverse, scattered approaches coming from various sources.  Do you want the 5, 6, or 7 key principles?  Which rules and standards are followed?  Are we following the UN Collective Agreement Advocating the Ethical Use of AI or the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s National AI R&D Strategic Plan?  It doesn’t matter, both are voluntary non-binding recommendations.

The reality is there are no existing AI regulations other than existing law, woefully inadequate for specialized AI scenarios.  We’ve reached a point where AI specific regulations are needed

to protect populations at large from AI-related safety risks, of which there are many.

Out of 200 technology companies assessed in 2022-2023, only 44 companies reported using a publicly available framework for ethical AI. The lack of voluntary adoption of ethical AI principles ultimately points to the need for multi-stakeholder collaborations to create awareness around this issue and drive systemic change.  The EU may be leading the way on this front.

The EU’s AI Act sets rules establishing obligations for providers and users depending on the level or risk from AI.  The law is expected to pass around 2024.

·     AI posing “unacceptable” levels of risk (behavioral manipulation, real-time and remote biometrics, social scoring…) will be banned

·     High-risk AI systems (relating to law enforcement, education, immigration…) “will be assessed before being put on the market and also throughout their lifecycle”

·     Limited-risk AI systems will need to “comply with minimal transparency requirements that would allow users to make informed decisions.”

The teeth behind the law will come in the form of sanctions and penalties for non-compliance.  They range from €10 million to €40 million or 2% to 7% of the global annual turnover, depending on the severity of the infringement.

While responsible governments are working to implement ethical AI, others are openly working against this.  China’s ongoing surveillance of its citizens has been well documented.  Currently, China’s central bank is adopting digital currency, allowing Beijing to surveil and control individual’s financial transactions.

Other countries such as Ecuador and Kyrgyzstan have implemented Chinese-based technologies for techo-authoritarianism.  China’s model of Internet “sovereignty,” by which the state delimits and controls the Internet within its borders has inspired governments from Egypt to Thailand.

It would be easy to divide countries AI ethical directions into 2 camps – the democratic human rights centered nations versus authoritarian manipulative control.  Good versus evil, except the good side has room for improvement.  The US history of government and corporate citizen surveillance has been exposed by numerous whistle blowers.  Five Eyes, an intelligence coalition comprised of the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, has sought to undermine encryption by pressuring companies to give governments backdoor access to all digital communications.

To counteract China’s growing techo-authoritarianism the US must adopt or enact rules aligned with the EU’s AI Act.  An independent agency tasked with monitoring and grading corporate AI ethical practices could provide a much-needed metric for determining a company’s level of AI ethical performance.  Public report cards.

Concrete legally binding rules and regulatory interventions are needed to hold corporations accountable.  For companies not following ethical guidelines, the US Global Magnitsky Act sanctions allow U.S. policymakers to sanction companies that abuse human rights.  Current initiatives promote toothless vague principles such as “autonomy,” “diversity,” and “fairness.”  Stronger actions such as mandatory due diligence checks, offer an effective means of ensuring accountability.

An open uncensored internet has been a powerful tool in promoting AI collective responsibility.  From Human Rights Watch Article – China’s Techno-Authoritarianism Has Gone Global:

“Washington should work with its allies to ensure that people in China and around the world have access to an Internet that is free from censorship and surveillance—an alternative to China’s Digital Silk Road initiative. A democratic substitute for Huawei’s 5G should not be just any 5G company based in a democracy but one that meets human rights standards itself.”

The article further recommends steps such as digital public squares, forums for public interaction and collaboration separate from big tech social media platforms and their inherent agendas.  Mention is given to Taiwan and Barcelona where, “technology is augmenting civic participation and democratic governance and may help craft a truly democratic techno-political system.”

The US – Chinese competition over technology will shape our future, with the winner establishing the future direction of AI.  A bottom-up approach is needed to ensure AI serves humanity or we’ll be serving the AI.  Individuals and the media must hold government accountable to enact and enforce AI ethical standards on corporations and themselves.  Global commerce and competition are the strongest force motivators to secure ethical benevolent AI.