Opening Word document…

Developing good AI is possible, but it requires harmonizing AI’s values with human ones.

Claudio Novelli 22. Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Digital Ethics (CEDE), Department of Legal Studies, Unibo. PhD in Law, Science and Technology at CIRSFID. PhD in cotutelle in Droit at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF), University of Luxembourg. “AI AND LEGAL PERSONHOOD: A THEORETICAL SURVEY.” http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/10392/1/Legal%20Personhood_A%20theoretical%20survey%20%281%29.pdf.

One of the main missions of AI governance is value harmonisation for design, development, and deployment of AI technologies. As accountability regimes govern moral expectations and claims in social interactions, they promote alignment on specific values and beliefs (Dubnick, 2011). In AI, accountability fosters convergence towards values like fairness, inclusivity, and transparency. Under this governance mission, the goal of compliance should be emphasised. Value harmonisation engenders trust (Taddeo, 2017), which is another key mission of AI governance, one for which accountability plays a key role. Good governance ensures that expectations about the benefits of AI technologies are met. This requires understanding technological potential and risks, building an appropriate infrastructure to integrate AIs into specific environments, and developing safe, robust, and efficient AIs. Accountability rules, both proactively and reactively, introduce oversight and transparency mechanisms throughout the life cycle of AIs, and thus play a central role in fostering trust in AI. The greater the legal certainty on accountability schemes, the greater the public and private trust in AIs. AI market growth comes through legal certainty and widespread trust. Under this governance mission, oversight and report should be emphasised. To drive its impact on society, governance policies must distribute the costs and risks of AI. An efficient allocation of social costs should incentivise technological innovation, prevent or minimise damage, and ensure redress for victims. As accountability regimes assign duties and liabilities for social activities, they also distribute negative externalities. There will be different social effects depending on how the accountability burdens are distributed among stakeholders of AIs. The AI Act, for example, places most of the accountability burdens on developers and providers of high-risk AIs. 22 Under this governance mission, the focus should be on enforcement.

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.