Computers Say ‘No’ But AI’s Decisions Must Be Fair & Transparent

American teachers have prevailed in a lawsuit with their school district over a computer program that assessed their performance.

The system rated teachers in Houston by comparing their students’ test scores against state averages. Those with high ratings won praise and even bonuses. Those who fared poorly faced the sack.

The program did not please everyone. Some teachers felt that the system marked them down without good reason. But they had no way of checking if the program was fair or faulty: the company that built the software, the SAS Institute, regards its algorithm a trade secret and would not disclose its workings.

The teachers took their case to court and a federal judge ruled that use of the EVAAS (Educational Value Added Assessment System) program may violate their civil rights. In settling the case, the school district paid the teachers’ fees and agreed to stop using the software.

The law has treated others differently. When Wisconsin police arrested Eric Loomis in 2013 for driving a car used in a shooting, he was handed a hefty prison term in part because a computer algorithm known as Compas judged him at high risk of re-offending. Loomis challenged the sentence because he was unable to check the program. His argument was rejected by the Wisconsin supreme court.

The arrival of artificial intelligence has raised concerns over computerised decisions to a new high. Powerful AIs are proliferating in society, through banks, legal firms and businesses, into the National Health Service and government. It is not their popularity that is problematic; it is whether they are fair and can be held to account.

Researchers have documented a long list of AIs that make bad decisions either because of coding mistakes or biases ingrained in the data they trained on.

Bad AIs have flagged the innocent as terrorists, sent sick patients home from hospital, lost people their jobs and car licences, had people kicked off the electoral register, and chased the wrong men for child support bills. They have discriminated on the basis of names, addresses, gender and skin colour. 

Bad intentions are not needed to make bad AI. A company might use an AI to search CVs for good job applicants after training it on information about people who rose to the top of the firm. If the culture at the business is healthy, the AI might well spot promising candidates, but if not, it might suggest people for interview who think nothing of trampling on their colleagues for a promotion. 

Opening the black box
How to make AIs fair, accountable and transparent is now one of the most crucial areas of AI research. Most AIs are made by private companies who do not let outsiders see how they work. Moreover, many AIs employ such complex neural networks that even their designers cannot explain how they arrive at answers. The decisions are delivered from a “black box” and must essentially be taken on trust. That may not matter if the AI is recommending the next series of Game of Thrones. But the stakes are higher if the AI is driving a car, diagnosing illness, or holding sway over a person’s job or prison sentence.

Recently, the AI Now Institute at New York University, which researches the social impact of AI, urged public agencies responsible for criminal justice, healthcare, welfare and education, to ban black box AIs because their decisions cannot be explained. 
“We can’t accept systems in high stakes domains that aren’t accountable to the public,” said Kate Crawford, a co-founder of the institute. The report said AIs should pass pre-release trials and be monitored “in the wild” so that biases and other faults are swiftly corrected.

Tech firms know that coming regulations and public pressure may demand AIs that can explain their decisions, but developers want to understand them too. 

Klaus-Robert Müller, professor of machine learning at the Technical University of Berlin, has trained an AI to diagnose breast cancer using variety of medical data. It is not good enough for the AI to simply spit out a diagnosis, he says. “It’s absolutely mandatory for the individual patient to know what the heck is going on.”

To understand how their AI reached decisions, Müller and his team developed an inspection program known as Layerwise Relevance Propagation, or LRP. It can take an AI’s decision and work backwards through the program’s neural network to reveal how a decision was made. 

Instead of exposing the full inner workings of an AI, it figures out what it would take to change the AI’s decision. Suppose an AI turns down a mortgage applicant. A researcher at Oxord Univerity, Dr Sandra Wachter, has formulated Wachter’s method which when used correctly might reveal that the loan was denied because the person’s income was £30,000, but would have been approved if it was £45,000. It allows the decision to be challenged and informs the person what needs to change to get the loan. 

For some researchers, the time to start regulating AI has arrived. “We have seen too many slip-ups, and AI is too powerful not to have government be part of the solution,” said Craig Fagan, policy director at Tim Berners-Lee’s Web Foundation. “It’s asking companies to take on a lot of responsibility to manage such rapid economic, political and social transformation and not have some government oversight.” 

Along with Luciano Floridi and Brent Mittelstadt at the Oxford Internet Institute, Wachter has called for a European AI watchdog to police the technology. The body would need powers to send independent investigators into organisations to scrutinise their AIs and extract meaningful explanations. 

To keep people safe, AIs could be certified for use in critical arenas such as medicine, criminal justice and driverless cars. “If we’re deploying them in critical infrastructure, we need to be sure they meet safety standards,” Wachter said.
“We need transparency as far as it is achievable, but above all we need to have a mechanism to redress whatever goes wrong, some kind of ombudsman,” said Floridi. “It’s only the government that can do that.”

Guardian

You Might Also Read: 

Artificial Intelligence Needs Regulation:

The AI Apocalypse:

Computer Says No:
 

« N. Korean Hackers Plan to Devastate UK
Management Coverup At Uber After 57m Customers Hacked »

CyberSecurity Jobsite
Check Point

Directory of Suppliers

Alvacomm

Alvacomm

Alvacomm offers holistic VIP cybersecurity services, providing comprehensive protection against cyber threats. Our solutions include risk assessment, threat detection, incident response.

CSI Consulting Services

CSI Consulting Services

Get Advice From The Experts: * Training * Penetration Testing * Data Governance * GDPR Compliance. Connecting you to the best in the business.

Practice Labs

Practice Labs

Practice Labs is an IT competency hub, where live-lab environments give access to real equipment for hands-on practice of essential cybersecurity skills.

TÜV SÜD Academy UK

TÜV SÜD Academy UK

TÜV SÜD offers expert-led cybersecurity training to help organisations safeguard their operations and data.

BackupVault

BackupVault

BackupVault is a leading provider of automatic cloud backup and critical data protection against ransomware, insider attacks and hackers for businesses and organisations worldwide.

Intercede

Intercede

Intercede is a cybersecurity company specializing in digital identities, derived credentials and access control, enabling digital trust in a mobile world.

ActiveCyber

ActiveCyber

ActiveCyber is a source for news, reviews, learning, and technological innovation in the active cyber defense industry.

WISeKey

WISeKey

WISeKey is a leading cybersecurity company currently deploying large scale digital identity ecosystems for people and objects using Blockchain, AI and IoT.

Ingenio Global

Ingenio Global

Ingenio is a specialist recruitment business for SaaS companies. Our purpose is to source exceptional talent in areas including cyber security for leading SaaS companies in the UK and Ireland.

Flix11

Flix11

Flix11 is a Cyber Security & ICT Solutions focused company. We provide a range of products and services in Cyber Security, Internet of Things (IoT) and infrastructure solutions.

IDX

IDX

IDX is the leading consumer privacy platform built for agility in the digital age.

Protek International

Protek International

Protek International delivers world-class Digital Forensics, eDiscovery, Cyber Security, and related Advisory services.

Framatome

Framatome

Framatome Cybersecurity portfolio is directly inspired by its unique experience in nuclear safety for critical information systems and electrical systems design.

Security Risk Management (SRM)

Security Risk Management (SRM)

SRM provide a comprehensive security risk management service encompassing people, processes, technology, governance, compliance and risk management.

Recon InfoSec

Recon InfoSec

The Recon InfoSec team includes analysts, architects, engineers, intrusion specialists, penetration testers, and operations experts.

White Tuque

White Tuque

A new way to protect your organization. White Tuque is your partner in identifying threats, understanding your risk, and ensuring your business remains resilient.

iNovex

iNovex

iNovex is a community of innovators that work together to solve hard problems. We partner with you to meet problems head-on and push boundaries with technology solutions.

Exodata

Exodata

Exodata is a French digital services company specializing in the outsourcing of IT Systems and solutions.

System360

System360

System360 is one of Houston's top suppliers of network administration, design, security, and support services.

Attura

Attura

Atturra is one of Australia's leading advisory and IT solutions providers, focused on providing end-to-end transformation services to its clients.

Avantra

Avantra

Avantra Enterprise is an end to end platform for AIOps and ITSecOps scenarios - with best practices configuration, security vulnerability patching, system refreshes and anomaly detection automations.