Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: the US, EU, and UK approach

In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a ‘good AI society’. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a ‘good AI society’; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a ‘good AI society’. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.

[1]  K. Crawford.  Artificial Intelligence's White Guy Problem , 2016 .

[2]  L. Floridi,et al.  Data ethics , 2021, Effective Directors.

[3]  Nicholas Diakopoulos,et al.  Accountability in algorithmic decision making , 2016, Commun. ACM.

[4]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  The Fourth Revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality , 2014 .

[5]  Ryan Calo,et al.  There is a blind spot in AI research , 2016, Nature.

[6]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  The Fourth Revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality , 2012 .

[7]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation , 2017 .

[8]  Mariarosaria Taddeo,et al.  On the Risks of Relying on Analogies to Understand Cyber Conflicts , 2016, Minds and Machines.

[9]  Matthew U. Scherer.  Regulating Artificial Intelligence Systems: Risks, Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies , 2015 .

[10]  Mariarosaria Taddeo,et al.  The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate , 2016, Big Data Soc..

[11]  Pericle Salvini,et al.  RoboLaw: Towards a European framework for robotics regulation , 2016, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[12]  Ugo Pagallo,et al.  Three Lessons Learned for Intelligent Transport Systems that Abide by the Law , 2016 .

[13]  A. M. Turing,et al.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[14]  Stephen L. Quackenbush,et al.  Deterrence theory: where do we stand? , 2010, Review of International Studies.

[15]  A. Tutt.  An FDA for Algorithms , 2016 .

[16]  Ugo Pagallo,et al.  Even Angels Need the Rules: AI, Roboethics, and the Law , 2016, ECAI.

[17]  J. Kemp,et al.  The Concept of Law , 1962 .

[18]  J. Reidenberg,et al.  Accountable Algorithms , 2016 .

[19]  Mariarosaria Taddeo,et al.  Just Information Warfare , 2014, Topoi.

[20]  Mike Ananny,et al.  Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability , 2018, New Media Soc..

[21]  Bryant Furlow.  IBM Watson Collaboration Aims to Improve Oncology Decision Support Tools , 2016 .

[22]  L. Floridi.  On Human Dignity as a Foundation for the Right to Privacy , 2016 .

[23]  Luciano Floridi.  The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics: Ethics after the Information Revolution , 2010 .

[24]  Patrick Glynn.  Closing Pandora's box , 1992 .

[25]  Mara Hvistendahl.  Crime forecasters. , 2016, Science.

[26]  Luciano Floridi.  Mature Information Societies—a Matter of Expectations , 2016 .