This page is still being polished. If you have thoughts, please share them via the feedback form.
Data on this page is preliminary and may change. Please do not share or cite these figures publicly.
Oversight agencies, supervisory organizations, and regulatory authorities for AI governance.
Also in Legal & Regulatory
• Scientific evaluation and supervision of AI products, software, systems, or services; ex-post monitoring, including: • Monitoring and enforcing requirements for design, verification, testing, and evaluation • Verifying that algorithms, e.g., follow existing standards, operate appropriately, are tested, and have accountability frameworks in place
Reasoning
Establishes approval authority for algorithms, creating executive oversight and decision-making control.
Comprehensive frameworks on governance
Governance frameworks should: • Support increasing collective understanding of the AI phenomenon and collective reflection and informed policy decisions on the need for and means of governing AI • Facilitate consensus-building between various stakeholders and support cost–benefit analyses between values and interests • Enable meaningful stakeholder and public consultation and participation in decision-making • Use a coherent and integrated set of tools that combines various solutions, tools, and techniques at different levels of society to improve decision-making • Ensure that developers of AI systems are subject to statutory oversight by an independent regulator with appropriate investigative and enforcement powers • Account for the diversity of AI technology and services, including their short- and long-term direct and potential indirect impacts and challenges
3.1 Legal & RegulatoryProcesses for improving public governance and coordination of AI
AI governance should implement agile and adaptive governance processes and pay attention to the following recommendations: • Stakeholder collaboration and public deliberation should be maintained as key inputs throughout governance processes. • Adopt responsible innovation principles and processes, including communicative principles for deliberation • Use co-regulation process in developing AI regulation • Coordination organizations can support agile and adaptive governance and co-regulation • Ensure that governance strategies are based on understanding the long-term consequences and challenges of AI governance
3.3.1 Industry CoordinationEthics and human rights in policy making
Human-rights standards and approaches-based actionable ethical principles can be enhanced using: • Assessment of governance capacities and dynamics; ethical and human-rights risks • Collaboration and stakeholder participation • Operationalizable tools, mechanisms, and recommendations • Prerequisites for operationalization include oversight structures, accountability, traceability, sanction mechanisms, and design for supporting stakeholder involvement and value alignment in AI development and use
2.1 Oversight & AccountabilityTools and tasks for governing institutions
A regulatory agency or relevant governing institution to support operationalization of good governance and ethical principles. Tasks of such governing institutions include: • Oversight and approval of algorithms • Supervision of organizations developing AI • Assessment of ethical issues and social impacts of AI, data governance, risk-management mechanisms, impacts on and of legislation, and AI development processes • Certification, audition, and development • Testing and licensing
3.1.2 Regulatory BodiesAgile and adaptive governance processes and coordination
• AI governance should utilize adaptive, people-centered, and inclusive policy-making, as governance is a result of multi-stakeholder action coordinated by the state • It should adopt decentralized, bottom-up decision-making, drawing on an array of expertise within and outside public administration, and broad participation • In addition to ethical principles, lessons should be learned from the RRI approach on how to systematically address societal challenges in technology development and use • Adoption of transformative innovation policy—innovation policy is also about tackling societal challenges • Communicative principles of deliberation and RRI should be used in AI governance and policy-making • Establishment of governance coordinating committee or similar organization to coordinate, e.g., AI stakeholder engagement, dialogue, recommendations, and guidelines
3.1.2 Regulatory BodiesCo-regulation processes in developing AI regulation
Develop regulation according to a co-regulatory model, where industry and other stakeholder representatives together with the public administration negotiate statutory obligations
3.1.1 Legislation & PolicyHow Should Public Administrations Foster the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence? A Review of Proposals for Developing Governance of AI
Sigfrids, Anton; Nieminen, Mika; Leikas, Jaana; Pikkuaho, Pietari (2022)
Recent advances in AI raise questions about its social impacts and implementation. In response, governments and public administrations seek to develop adequate governance frameworks to mitigate risks and maximize the potential of AI development and use. Such work largely deals with questions of how challenges and risks should be managed, which values and goals should be pursued, and through which institutional mechanisms and principles these goals could be achieved. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of the existing literature on the development of AI governance for public administration. The article describes principles and means by which public administrations could guide and steer AI developers and users in adopting ethical and responsible practices. The reviewed literature indicates a need for public administrations to move away from top-down hierarchical governance principles and adopt forms of inclusive policy-making to ensure the actionability of ethical and responsibility principles in the successful governance of AI development and use. By combining the results, we propose a CIIA (Comprehensive, Inclusive, Institutionalized, and Actionable) framework that integrates the key aspects of the proposed development solutions into an ideal typical and comprehensive model for AI governance. Copyright © 2022 Sigfrids, Nieminen, Leikas and Pikkuaho.
Operate and Monitor
Running, maintaining, and monitoring the AI system post-deployment
Unable to classify
Could not be classified to a specific actor type
Measure
Quantifying, testing, and monitoring identified AI risks