Survey of EU ethical guidelines for commercial AI: case studies in financial services

A macro perspective examining the general nature of AI implementations and how enforcement should be structured under the new frontier of AI technologies is severely needed. The paper critically analyzes real and potential ethical impacts of AI-enabled systems as well as the standard process regulators, researchers, and firms use to assess the risks of these technologies. Three real-world cases are detailed as each type of AI implementation highlights varying degrees of ethical impacts. The paper surveys whether the current September 2020 European Parliament standard titled “European framework on ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies” will handle all cases effectively. Future regulators enforcing principles must be able to discern how each AI implementation should be handled as it is evident that there is a spectrum of ethical applicability on the use-case level. The cases examined are in using AI to automate the mortgage application process, find matching attributes for trade reconciliation tasks, and optimizing order entries within trading algorithms. The focus of the cases provided is in the financial industry as firms in this sector, on average, spend the highest percentage of their total revenue on information technology projects. Though the EU framework is thorough in recommending an ex-ante approach, providing risk classifications, and detailing effective measures to mitigate harm from AI-enabled systems, it falls short in identifying certain macroeconomic harms caused by AI-enabled systems and tracking the applications responsible within complex, interlinked systems.

[1]  Luca Oneto,et al.  Fairness in Machine Learning , 2020, INNSBDDL.

[2]  Michael Veale,et al.  Fairer machine learning in the real world: Mitigating discrimination without collecting sensitive data , 2017, Big Data Soc..

[3]  Felix Redmill,et al.  Risk analysis-a subjective process , 2002 .

[4]  Marcello Ienca,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelines , 2019, ArXiv.

[5]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[6]  A. Kyle,et al.  The Flash Crash: High-Frequency Trading in an Electronic Market , 2017 .

[7]  G. Galster Research on discrimination in housing and mortgage markets: Assessment and future directions , 1992 .

[8]  Kathleen L. Mosier,et al.  Accountability and automation bias , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  D. Sornette,et al.  Crashes and High Frequency Trading , 2011 .

[10]  Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham,et al.  Predictably Unequal? The Effects of Machine Learning on Credit Markets , 2017, The Journal of Finance.

[11]  Jacob S. Rugh,et al.  The social structure of mortgage discrimination , 2017, Housing studies.

[12]  Thilo Hagendorff,et al.  The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines , 2019, Minds and Machines.

[13]  Anna Jobin,et al.  The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines , 2019, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[14]  Berkeley J. Dietvorst,et al.  Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  Philip Treleaven,et al.  Algorithms in future capital markets: a survey on AI, ML and associated algorithms in capital markets , 2020, ICAIF.

[16]  Nathalie A. Smuha The EU Approach to Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence , 2019, Computer Law Review International.

[17]  Julia Rubin,et al.  Fairness Definitions Explained , 2018, 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare).

[18]  Mike Farjam,et al.  Bubbles in Hybrid Markets - How Expectations About Algorithmic Trading Affect Human Trading , 2015, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[19]  Ali N. Akansu,et al.  The Flash Crash: A Review , 2017 .