Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Challenges and Limitations of Transparency
Transparency by Design
Model for Transparency by Design
Transparency by Design: Phases and Principles
Design of Ai Systems (Phase 1)
Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Information Systems

Towards Transparency by Design for Artificial Intelligence

Profile image of Christoph LutzChristoph Lutz

2020, Science and Engineering Ethics

https://doi.org/10.1007/S11948-020-00276-4
visibility

…

description

29 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In this article, we develop the concept of Transparency by Design that serves as practical guidance in helping promote the beneficial functions of transparency while mitigating its challenges in automated-decision making (ADM) environments. With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the ability of AI systems to make automated and self-learned decisions, a call for transparency of how such systems reach decisions has echoed within academic and policy circles. The term transparency, however, relates to multiple concepts, fulfills many functions, and holds different promises that struggle to be realized in concrete applications. Indeed, the complexity of transparency for ADM shows tension between transparency as a normative ideal and its translation to practical application. To address this tension, we first conduct a review of transparency, analyzing its challenges and limitations concerning automated decision-making practices. We then look at the lessons learned from the development of Privacy by Design, as a basis for developing the Transparency by Design principles. Finally, we propose a set of nine principles to cover relevant con-textual, technical, informational, and stakeholder-sensitive considerations. Transparency by Design is a model that helps organizations design transparent AI systems, by integrating these principles in a step-by-step manner and as an ex-ante value, not as an afterthought.

Related papers

A Multistakeholder Approach Towards Evaluating AI Transparency Mechanisms
madhulika srikumar

ArXiv, 2021

Copyright held by the owner/author(s). CHI’21, May 8-13, 2021, Online Virtual Conference ACM 978-1-4503-6819-3/20/04. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.XXXXXXX Abstract Given that there are a variety of stakeholders involved in, and affected by, decisions from machine learning (ML) models, it is important to consider that different stakeholders have different transparency needs [14]. Previous work found that the majority of deployed transparency mechanisms primarily serve technical stakeholders [2]. In our work, we want to investigate how well transparency mechanisms might work in practice for a more diverse set of stakeholders by conducting a large-scale, mixed-methods user study across a range of organizations, within a particular industry such as health care, criminal justice, or content moderation. In this paper, we outline the setup for our study.

View PDFchevron_right
Path To Gain Functional Transparency In Artificial Intelligence With Meaningful Explainability
Journal of Metaverse, Khaleque Insia

Journal of Metaverse, 2023

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly integrating into various aspects of our daily lives, influencing decision-making processes in areas such as targeted advertising and matchmaking algorithms. As AI systems become increasingly sophisticated, ensuring their transparency and explainability becomes crucial. Functional transparency is a fundamental aspect of algorithmic decision-making systems, allowing stakeholders to comprehend the inner workings of these systems and enabling them to evaluate their fairness and accuracy. However, achieving functional transparency poses significant challenges that need to be addressed. In this paper, we propose a design for user-centered compliant-by-design transparency in transparent systems. We emphasize that the development of transparent and explainable AI systems is a complex and multidisciplinary endeavor, necessitating collaboration among researchers from diverse fields such as computer science, artificial intelligence, ethics, law, and social science. By providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges associated with transparency in AI systems and proposing a user-centered design framework, we aim to facilitate the development of AI systems that are accountable, trustworthy, and aligned with societal values.

View PDFchevron_right
AI Opaqueness: What Makes AI Systems More Transparent?
Victoria L Rubin

Proceedings of the annual conference of CAIS, 2020

Artificially Intelligent (AI) systems are pervasive, but poorly understood by their users and, at times, developers. It is often unclear how and why certain algorithms make choices, predictions, or conclusions. What does AI transparency mean? What explanations do AI system users desire? This panel discusses AI opaqueness with examples in applied context such as natural language processing, people categorization, judicial decision explanations, and system recommendations. We offer insights from interviews with AI system users about their perceptions and developers' lessons learned. What steps should be taken towards AI transparency and accountability for its decisions? * See the panelists' brief biographies at the end.

View PDFchevron_right
Transparency of AI in Healthcare as a Multilayered System of Accountabilities: Between Legal Requirements and Technical Limitations
Anastasiya Kiseleva

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

The lack of transparency is one of the artificial intelligence (AI)'s fundamental challenges, but the concept of transparency might be even more opaque than AI itself. Researchers in different fields who attempt to provide the solutions to improve AI's transparency articulate different but neighboring concepts that include, besides transparency, explainability and interpretability. Yet, there is no common taxonomy neither within one field (such as data science) nor between different fields (law and data science). In certain areas like healthcare, the requirements of transparency are crucial since the decisions directly affect people's lives. In this paper, we suggest an interdisciplinary vision on how to tackle the issue of AI's transparency in healthcare, and we propose a single point of reference for both legal scholars and data scientists on transparency and related concepts. Based on the analysis of the European Union (EU) legislation and literature in computer s...

View PDFchevron_right
Algorithmic transparency as a fundamental right in the democratic rule of law
Alana Engelmann

Brazilian Journal of Law Technology and Innovation, 2023

This article scrutinizes the escalating apprehensions surrounding algorithmic transparency, positing it as a pivotal facet for ethics and accountability in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. By delving into legislative and regulatory initiatives across various jurisdictions, the article discerns how different countries and regions endeavor to institute guidelines fostering ethical and responsible AI systems. Within the United States, both the US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 and The European Artificial Intelligence Act share a common objective of establishing governance frameworks to hold errant entities accountable, ensuring the ethical, legal, and secure implementation of AI systems. A key emphasis in both legislations is placed on algorithmic transparency and elucidation of system functionalities, with the overarching goal of instilling accountability in AI operations. This examination extends to Brazil, where legislative proposals such as PL 2.338/2023 grapple with the intricacies of AI deployment and algorithmic transparency. Furthermore, PEC 29/2023 endeavors to enshrine algorithmic transparency as a fundamental right, recognizing its pivotal role in safeguarding users' mental integrity in the face of advancing neurotechnology and algorithmic utilization. To ascertain the approaches adopted by Europe, the United States, and Brazil in realizing the concept of Algorithmic Transparency in AI systems employed for decision-making, a comparative and deductive methodology is employed. This methodology aligns with bibliographical analysis, incorporating legal doctrines, legislative texts, and jurisprudential considerations from the respective legal systems. The analysis encompasses Algorithmic Transparency, Digital Due Process, and Accountability as inherent legal constructs, offering a comprehensive comparative perspective. However, the mere accessibility of source codes is deemed insufficient to guarantee effective comprehension and scrutiny by end-users. Recognizing this, the imperative of explainability in elucidating how AI systems function becomes evident, enabling citizens to comprehend the rationale behind decisions made by these systems. Legislative initiatives, exemplified by Resolution No. 332/2020 of the National Council of Justice (CNJ), underscore the acknowledgment of the imperative for transparency and accountability in AI systems utilized within the Judiciary.

View PDFchevron_right
Making Artificial Intelligence Transparent: Fairness and the Problem of Proxy Variables
Richard Warner

2021

AI-driven decisions can draw data from virtually any area of your life to make a decision about virtually any other area of your life. That creates fairness issues. Effective regulation to ensure fairness requires that AI systems be transparent. That is, regulators must have sufficient access to the factors that explain and justify the decisions. One approach transparency is to require that systems be explainable, as that concept is understood in computer science. An system is explainable if one can provide a human-understandable explanation of why it makes any particular prediction. Explainability should not be equated with transparency. Instead, we define transparency for a regulatory purpose. A system is transparent for a regulatory purpose (r-transparent) when and only when regulators have an explanation, adequate for that purpose, of why it yields the predictions it does. Explainability remains relevant to transparency but turns out to be neither necessary nor sufficient for it. The concepts of explainability and r-transparency combine to yield four possibilities: explainable and either r-transparent or not; and not explainable and either not r-transparent or r-transparent. Combining r-transparency with ideas from the Harvard computer scientist Cynthia Dwork, we propose for requirements on AI systems.

View PDFchevron_right
From transparency to accountability of intelligent systems: Moving beyond aspirations
Frances Ryan

Data & Policy, 2022

A number of governmental and nongovernmental organizations have made significant efforts to encourage the development of artificial intelligence in line with a series of aspirational concepts such as transparency, interpretability, explainability, and accountability. The difficulty at present, however, is that these concepts exist at a fairly abstract level, whereas in order for them to have the tangible effects desired they need to become more concrete and specific. This article undertakes precisely this process of concretisation, mapping how the different concepts interrelate and what in particular they each require in order to move from being high-level aspirations to detailed and enforceable requirements. We argue that the key concept in this process is accountability, since unless an entity can be held accountable for compliance with the other concepts, and indeed more generally, those concepts cannot do the work required of them. There is a variety of taxonomies of accountabil...

View PDFchevron_right
Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: Ethical Guidelines in Practice
Sari Kujala

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2022

Recent studies have highlighted transparency and explainability as important quality requirements of AI systems. However, there are still relatively few case studies that describe the current state of defining these quality requirements in practice. [Question] The goal of our study was to explore what ethical guidelines organizations have defined for the development of transparent and explainable AI systems. We analyzed the ethical guidelines in 16 organizations representing different industries and public sector. [Results] In the ethical guidelines, the importance of transparency was highlighted by almost all of the organizations, and explainability was considered as an integral part of transparency. Building trust in AI systems was one of the key reasons for developing transparency and explainability, and customers and users were raised as the main target groups of the explanations. The organizations also mentioned developers, partners, and stakeholders as important groups needing explanations. The ethical guidelines contained the following aspects of the AI system that should be explained: the purpose, role of AI, inputs, behavior, data utilized, outputs, and limitations. The guidelines also pointed out that transparency and explainability relate to several other quality requirements, such as trustworthiness, understandability, traceability, privacy, auditability, and fairness. [Contribution] For researchers, this paper provides insights into what organizations consider important in the transparency and, in particular, explainability of AI systems. For practitioners, this study suggests a structured way to define explainability requirements of AI systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Transparency as an Ethical Safeguard
Lily Frank, Pim Haselager

Transparency seems to represent a solution to many ethic issues generated by systems that collect implicit data from users to model the user themselves based on programmed criteria. However, making such systems transparent – besides being a major technical challenge-risks raising more issues than it solves, actually reducing the user's ability to protect themselves while trying to put them in control. Are transparent systems only a chimera, which provides a seemingly useful information pastiche while failing to make sense upon closer examination? Scholars from ethics and cognitive science share their thoughts on how to achieve genuine transparency and the value of transparency.

View PDFchevron_right
Addressing the Growing Need for Algorithmic Transparency
Conner Nations, Hugh J Watson

Communications of AIS, 2019

The use of personal data and algorithms for making recommendations and decisions is growing. There are concerns that this use is having a negative impact on individual privacy and poses a risk to individuals and society. In response, there are calls for greater algorithmic transparency; that is, for organizations to be more public and open about their use of personal data and algorithms. To better understand algorithmic transparency for this tutorial, we reviewed the literature and interviewed 10 experts. The study identified the factors that are influencing algorithmic transparency, the Association for Computing Machinery’s principles for ensuring that personal data and algorithms are used fairly, and recommendations for company best practices. The study also supports speculation about how personal data and algorithms may be used in the future.

View PDFchevron_right

References (120)

  1. Abdul, A., Vermeulen, J., Wang, D., Lim, B. Y., & Kankanhalli, M. (2018). Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An HCI research agenda. In ACM proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (Vol. 582, pp. 1-18).
  2. Abràmoff, M. D., Lavin, P. T., Birch, M., Shah, N., & Folk, J. C. (2018). Pivotal trial of an autono- mous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices. Nature Digital Medicine. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https ://www.natur e.com/artic les/s4174 6-018-0040-6.
  3. ACM (2017). Statement on algorithmic transparency and accountability. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https ://www.acm.org/binar ies/conte nt/asset s/publi c-polic y/2017_usacm _state ment_algor ithms .pdf.
  4. Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018). Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on Explainable Artificial Intel- ligence (XAI). IEEE Access, 6, 52138-52160.
  5. Albu, O. B., & Flyverbom, M. (2019). Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Business and Society, 58(2), 68-297.
  6. AlgorithmWatch. (2019). Automating society: Taking stock of automated decision-making in the EU. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https ://algor ithmw atch.org/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2019/01/Autom ating _Socie ty_Repor t_2019.pdf.
  7. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowd- ing. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  8. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989.
  9. Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 35, 611-623.
  10. Bahner, J. E., Hüper, A. D., & Manzey, D. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 688-699.
  11. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Ben-Shahar, O., & Schneider, C. E. (2011). The failure of mandated disclosure. University of Pennsylva- nia Law Review, 159, 652-743.
  13. Ben-Shahar, O., & Schneider, C. E. (2014). More than you wanted to know: The failure of mandated dis- closure. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  14. Berglund, T. (2014). Corporate governance and optimal transparency. In J. Forssbaeck & L. Oxelheim (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic and institutional transparency (pp. 359-370). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 351-370.
  16. Bishop, S. (2018). Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube algorithm. Con- vergence, 24(1), 69-84.
  17. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468.
  18. Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 209-227.
  19. Brayne, S. (2017). Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review, 82(5), 977-1008.
  20. Brayne, S., & Christin, A. (2020). Technologies of crime prediction: The reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Social Problems. https ://doi.org/10.1093/socpr o/spaa0 04.
  21. Brey, P. (2010). Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. The Cambridge Handbook of Infor- mation and Computer Ethics, 4, 41-58.
  22. Büchi, M., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., Tamò-Larrieux, A., Velidi, S., & Viljoen, S. (2019). The chill- ing effects of algorithmic profiling: Mapping the issues. Computer Law & Security Review, 36, 105367.
  23. Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J., & Fieseler, C. (2019). Managing algorithmic accountability: Balancing repu- tational concerns, engagement strategies, and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Busi- ness Ethics. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-019-04226 -4.
  24. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine 'thinks': Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12.
  25. Calo, R. (2011). Against notice skepticism in privacy (and elsewhere). Notre Dame Law Review, 87(3), 1027-1072.
  26. Campolo, A., & Crawford, K. (2020). Enchanted determinism: Power without responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 6, 1-19.
  27. Carlsson, B. (2014). Transparency of innovation policy. In J. Forssbaeck & L. Oxelheim (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic and institutional transparency (pp. 219-238). Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press.
  28. Casey, B., Farhangi, A., & Vogl, R. (2019). Rethinking explainable machines: The GDPR's right to explanation debate and the rise of algorithmic audits in enterprise. Berkeley Technology Law Jour- nal, 34(1), 143-188.
  29. Cavoukian, A. (2009). Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from Privacy by Design-Foundational Principles.
  30. Cavoukian, A., Shapiro, S., & Cronk, R. J. (2014). Privacy engineering: Proactively embedding privacy, by design. Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https ://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/resou rces/pbd-priv-engin eerin g.pdf.
  31. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2051-2068.
  32. d'Aquin, M., Troullinou, P., O'Connor, N. E., Cullen, A., Faller, G., & Holden, L. (2018). Towards an "Ethics by Design" methodology for AI research projects. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (pp. 54-59).
  33. De Laat, P. B. (2018). Algorithmic decision-making based on machine learning from Big Data: Can transparency restore accountability? Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 525-541.
  34. Dennedy, M., Fox, J., & Finneran, T. (2014). The privacy engineer's manifesto: Getting from policy to code to QA to value. New York: Apress.
  35. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision-making: A view from computational journalism. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 56-62.
  36. Dignum, V., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Caon, M., Chatila, R., Dennis, L., Génova, G., Haim, G., Kließ, M.S., Lopez-Sanchez, M., & Micalizio, R. (2018). Ethics by design: Necessity or curse?. In Pro- ceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (pp. 60-66).
  37. Dourish, P. (2016). Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716665128.
  38. Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the algorithm: Why a right to an explanation is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke Law & Technology Review, 16, 18-84.
  39. Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2018). Enslaving the algorithm: From a "Right to an Explanation" to a "Right to Better Decisions"? IEEE Security and Privacy, 16(3), 46-54.
  40. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
  41. Elia, J. (2009). Transparency rights, technology, and trust. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 145-153.
  42. Eslami, M., Krishna Kumaran, S. R., Sandvig, C., & Karahalios, K. (2018). Communicating algorithmic process in online behavioral advertising. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human fac- tors in computing systems (pp. 1-13).
  43. European Commission. (2020). White paper on artificial intelligence: A European approach to excellence and trust. Retrieved August 19, 2020, from https ://ec.europ a.eu/info/sites /info/files /commi ssion -white -paper -artifi cial -intel ligen ce-feb20 20_en.pdf.
  44. Felzmann, H., Fosch Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2019a). Transparency you can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 1-14.
  45. Felzmann, H., Fosch Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2019b). Robots and transparency: The multiple dimensions of transparency in the context of robot technologies. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 26(2), 71-78.
  46. Forssbaeck, J., & Oxelheim, L. (2014). The multifaceted concept of transparency. In J. Forssbaeck & L. Oxelheim (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic and institutional transparency (pp. 3-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. Foster, C., & Frieden, J. (2017). Crisis of trust: Socio-economic determinants of Europeans' confidence in government. European Union Politics, 18(4), 511-535.
  48. Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4-5), 663-671.
  49. Friedman, B., Kahn, P., & Borning, A. (2008). Value sensitive design and information systems. In K. E. Himma & H. T. Tavani (Eds.), The handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 69-101). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  50. Fule, P., & Roddick, J. F. (2004). Detecting privacy and ethical sensitivity in data mining results. In Pro- ceedings of the 27th Australasian conference on computer science (Vol. 26, pp. 159-166). Austral- ian Computer Society, Inc.
  51. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  52. Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation". AI Magazine, 38(3), 50-57.
  53. Greiling, D. (2014). Accountability and trust. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 617-631). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575-586.
  55. Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to bet- ter governance? (pp. 25-43). London: British Academy Scholarship.
  56. Hildebrandt, M. (2013). Profile transparency by design? Re-enabling double contingency. In M. Hilde- brandt & K. de Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn: The philosophy of law meets the philosophy of technology (pp. 221-246). London: Routledge.
  57. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  58. HLEG AI (High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence). (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://ec.europ a.eu/futur ium/en/ai-allia nce-consu ltati on/ guide lines .
  59. Hood, C. (2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 3-23). London: British Academy Scholarship.
  60. IBM. (2018). Principles for trust and transparency. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://www. ibm.com/blogs /polic y/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2018/05/IBM_Princ iples _OnePa ge.pdf. Accessed . ICDPPC (International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners). (2018). Declara- tion on ethics and data protection in artificial intelligence. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://icdpp c.org/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2018/10/20180 922_ICDPP C-40th_AI-Decla ratio n_ADOPT ED.pdf. ICO. (2020). What is automated individual decision-making and profiling? Retrieved August 19, 2020, from https ://ico.org.uk/for-organ isati ons/guide -to-data-prote ction /guide -to-the-gener al-data-prote ction -regul ation -gdpr/autom ated-decis ion-makin g-and-profi ling/what-is-autom ated-indiv idual -decis ion-makin g-and-profi ling/.
  61. IEEE. (2019). Ethically aligned design (version 2). Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://stand ards. ieee.org/conte nt/dam/ieee-stand ards/stand ards/web/docum ents/other /ead_v2.pdf.
  62. Iphofen, R., & Kritikos, M. (2019). Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: Ethics by design in a digital society. Contemporary Social Science. https ://doi.org/10.1080/21582 041.2018.15638 03.
  63. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399.
  64. Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107(1), 4-25.
  65. Kaminski, M. E. (2019). The right to explanation, explained. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(1), 189-218.
  66. Karanasiou, A. P., & Pinotsis, D. A. (2017). A study into the layers of automated decision-making: Emer- gent normative and legal aspects of deep learning. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 31(2), 170-187.
  67. Kemper, J., & Kolkman, D. (2019). Transparent to whom? No algorithmic accountability without a criti- cal audience. Information, Communication & Society, 22(14), 2081-2096.
  68. Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. P. (2014). Towards critical data studies: Charting and unpacking data assem- blages and their work. In The programmable city working paper. Retrived November 11, 2020, from https ://paper s.ssrn.com/sol3/paper s.cfm?abstr act_id = 24741 12.
  69. Kolkman, D. (2020). The (in) credibility of algorithmic models to non-experts. Information, Communica- tion & Society. https ://doi.org/10.1080/13691 18X.2020.17618 60.
  70. Kroll, J. A., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H. (2016). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(3), 633-705.
  71. Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P. P. (2019). Ethics from within: Google Glass, the Collingridge dilemma, and the mediated value of privacy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 44(2), 291-314.
  72. Kulesza, T., Stumpf, S., Burnett, M., Yang, S., Kwan, I., & Wong, W. K. (2013). Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models. In 2013 IEEE Symposium on visual languages and human centric computing (pp. 3-10).
  73. Latonero, M. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Upholding human rights & dignity. Retrieved October, 20, 2020, from https ://datas ociet y.net/wp-conte nt/uploa ds/2018/10/DataS ociet y_Gover ning_Artifi cial _Intel ligen ce_Uphol ding_Human _Right s.pdf.
  74. Leetaru, K. (2018). Without transparency, democracy dies in the darkness of social media. Forbes, 25 January 2020. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https ://www.forbe s.com/sites /kalev leeta ru/2018/01/25/witho ut-trans paren cy-democ racy-dies-in-the-darkn ess-of-socia l-media /.
  75. Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 611-627.
  76. Mascharka, D., Tran, P., Soklaski, R., & Majumdar, A. (2018). Transparency by design: Closing the gap between performance and interpretability in visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 4942-4950).
  77. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183.
  78. Meijer, A. (2014). Transparency. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford hand- book of public accountability (pp. 507-524). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  79. Merchant, B. (2019). Tech journalism's 'on background' scourge. Columbia Journalism Review, July 17 2019. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://www.cjr.org/opini on/tech-journ alism -on-backg round .php.
  80. Microsoft. (2019). Microsoft AI principles. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://www.micro soft. com/en-us/ai/our-appro ach-to-ai.
  81. Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intel- ligence, 267, 1-38.
  82. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Map- ping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716679679.
  83. Mulligan, D. K., & King, J. (2011). Bridging the gap between privacy and design. University of Pennsyl- vania Journal of Constitutional Law, 14, 989-1034.
  84. Neyland, D. (2016). Bearing account-able witness to the ethical algorithmic system. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 50-76. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01622 43915 59805 6.
  85. Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Accountability in a computerized society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 25-42.
  86. Nissenbaum, H. (2001). How computer systems embody values. Computer, 34(3), 120.
  87. O'Neill, O. (2002). A question of trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  88. Paal, B. P., & Pauly, D. A. (Eds.). (2018). Datenschutz-Grundverordnung Bundesdatenschutzgesetz. Munich: CH Beck.
  89. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  90. Rader, E., Cotter, K., & Cho, J. (2018). Explanations as mechanisms for supporting algorithmic transpar- ency. In ACM proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-13).
  91. Rawlins, B. (2008). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organi- zational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71-99.
  92. Ringel, L. (2019). Unpacking the Transparency-Secrecy Nexus: Frontstage and backstage behaviour in a political party. Organization Studies, 40(5), 705-723.
  93. Roberge, J., & Seyfert, R. (2016). What are algorithmic cultures? In R. Seyfert & J. Roberge (Eds.), Algo- rithmic cultures: essays onmeaning, performance and new technologies (pp. 13-37). Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
  94. Roberts, S. T. (2019). Behind the screen: Content moderation in the shadows of social media. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  95. Rosenberg, M. (2019). Ad tool Facebook built to fight disinformation doesn't work as advertised. The New York Times, 25 July 2019. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://www.nytim es.com/2019/07/25/techn ology /faceb ook-ad-libra ry.htm.
  96. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross- discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
  97. Santa Clara Principles. (2018). Santa Clara principles on transparency and accountability in content mod- eration. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://newam erica dotor g.s3.amazo naws.com/docum ents/Santa _Clara _Princ iples .pdf.
  98. Schermer, B. W. (2011). The limits of privacy in automated profiling and data mining. Computer Law & Security Review, 27(1), 45-52.
  99. Seaver, N. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 2053951717738104.
  100. Seaver, N. (2019). Knowing algorithms. In J. Vertesi & D. Ribes (Eds.), Digital STS: A field guide for sci- ence and technology studies (pp. 412-422). PrincetonUniversity Press.
  101. Selbst, A. D., & Powles, J. (2017). Meaningful information and the right to explanation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(4), 233-242.
  102. Siles, I., Segura-Castillo, A., Solís, R., & Sancho, M. (2020). Folk theories of algorithmic recommenda- tions on Spotify: Enacting data assemblages in the global South. Big Data & Society, 7(1), 1-15.
  103. Singh, S. (2019). Everything in moderation: An analysis of how Internet platforms are using artificial intelligence to moderate user-generated content. New America, 22 July 2019. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https ://www.newam erica .org/oti/repor ts/every thing -moder ation -analy sis-how-inter net-platf orms-are-using -artifi cial -intel ligen ce-moder ate-user-gener ated-conte nt/.
  104. Striphas, T. (2015). Algorithmic culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4-5), 395-412.
  105. Sunstein, C. S. (2018). Output transparency vs. input transparency. In D. E. Pozen & M. Schudson (Eds.). Troubling transparency: The history and future of freedom of information (Chapter 9). New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https ://paper s.ssrn.com/sol3/paper s.cfm?abstr act_id=28260 09.
  106. Suzor, N. P., West, S. M., Quodling, A., & York, J. (2019). What do we mean when we talk about trans- parency? Toward meaningful transparency in commercial content moderation. International Jour- nal of Communication, 13, 1526-1543.
  107. Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2018). Designing for privacy and its legal framework. Cham: Springer.
  108. Tielenburg, D. S. (2018). The 'dark sides' of transparency: Rethinking information disclosure as a social praxis. Master's thesis, Utrecht University. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from https ://dspac e.libra ry.uu.nl/handl e/1874/36952 1.
  109. Tsoukas, H. (1997). The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information society. Futures, 29(9), 827-843.
  110. Tutt, A. (2017). An FDA for algorithms. Administrative Law Review, 69(1), 83-123.
  111. Van Otterlo, M. (2013). A machine learning view on profiling. In M. Hildebrandt & K. de Vries (Eds.), Privacy, due process and the computational turn: Philosophers of law meet philosophers of tech- nology (pp. 41-64). London: Routledge.
  112. Van Wynsberghe, A. (2013). Designing robots for care: Care centered value-sensitive design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 407-433.
  113. Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (paper 440). New York: ACM.
  114. Wachter, S., & Mittelstadt, B. (2019). A right to reasonable inferences: Re-thinking data protection law in the age of big data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review, 7(2), 494-620.
  115. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision- making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99.
  116. Weller, A. (2017). Challenges for transparency. arXiv preprint arXiv :1708.01870 .
  117. Wieringa, M. (2020). What to account for when accounting for algorithms. A systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In FAT* '20: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fair- ness, accountability, and transparency, January 2020 (pp. 1-18). https ://doi.org/10.1145/33510 95.33728 33
  118. Williams, C. C. (2005). Trust diffusion: The effect of interpersonal trust on structure, function, and organ- izational transparency. Business and Society, 44(3), 357-368.
  119. Zarsky, T. Z. (2013). Transparent predictions. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 1503-1570.
  120. Zerilli, J., Knott, A., Maclaurin, J., & Gavaghan, C. (2019). Transparency in algorithmic and human deci- sion-making: Is there a double standard? Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 661-683.

Related papers

Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making
Karl de Fine Licht

AI & SOCIETY, 2020

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for making decisions in public affairs has sparked a lively debate on the benefits and potential harms of self-learning technologies, ranging from the hopes of fully informed and objectively taken decisions to fear for the destruction of mankind. To prevent the negative outcomes and to achieve accountable systems, many have argued that we need to open up the “black box” of AI decision-making and make it more transparent. Whereas this debate has primarily focused on how transparency can secure high-quality, fair, and reliable decisions, far less attention has been devoted to the role of transparency when it comes to how the general public come toperceiveAI decision-making as legitimate and worthy of acceptance. Since relying on coercion is not only normatively problematic but also costly and highly inefficient, perceived legitimacy is fundamental to the democratic system. This paper discusses how transparency in and about AI decision...

View PDFchevron_right
Transparency you can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and contextual concerns
Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux, Christoph Lutz

Big Data & Society, 2019

Transparency is now a fundamental principle for data processing under the General Data Protection Regulation. We explore what this requirement entails for artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems. We address the topic of transparency in artificial intelligence by integrating legal, social, and ethical aspects. We first investigate the ratio legis of the transparency requirement in the General Data Protection Regulation and its ethical underpinnings, showing its focus on the provision of information and explanation. We then discuss the pitfalls with respect to this requirement by focusing on the significance of contextual and performative factors in the implementation of transparency. We show that human-computer interaction and human-robot interaction literature do not provide clear results with respect to the benefits of transparency for users of artificial intelligence technologies due to the impact of a wide range of contextual factors, including performative aspects. We conclude by integrating the information-and explanation-based approach to transparency with the critical contextual approach, proposing that transparency as required by the General Data Protection Regulation in itself may be insufficient to achieve the positive goals associated with transparency. Instead, we propose to understand transparency relationally, where information provision is conceptualized as communication between technology providers and users, and where assessments of trustworthiness based on contextual factors mediate the value of transparency communications. This relational concept of transparency points to future research directions for the study of transparency in artificial intelligence systems and should be taken into account in policymaking.

View PDFchevron_right
Standards, Frameworks, and Legislation for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transparency
Brady D Lund

AI and Ethics, 2025

Purpose This paper provides a comparative analysis of global standards, frameworks, and legislation for artificial intelligence (AI) transparency, emphasizing the importance of trust, accountability, and ethical AI development. It investigates how regions such as the United States, European Union, China, and Japan approach transparency in AI systems and identifies best practices and unresolved challenges. Design/methodology/approach The study conducts a cross-jurisdictional review of key transparency initiatives, including the IEEE P7001 Standard, the CLeAR Documentation Framework, and recent government actions such as U.S. Executive Order 14110. It analyzes transparency mechanisms—such as documentation, risk-tiered systems, stakeholder communication, and explainability—across legal, policy, and technical domains. Findings Despite regional differences, common principles in AI transparency include: Tiered transparency based on risk and system impact. Continuous documentation across development cycles. Tailored explanations for diverse stakeholders. Challenges persist in balancing transparency with privacy, intellectual property, and security concerns, especially amid rapid AI innovation. Originality/value This paper contributes to the growing body of research on AI governance and regulation by synthesizing current transparency standards and proposing the need for adaptive, sector-specific regulatory models. It offers a framework for policymakers, developers, and researchers to understand emerging transparency obligations while supporting innovation.

View PDFchevron_right
Varieties of transparency: Exploring agency within AI systems
Gloria Andrada

AI and Society, 2022

AI systems play an increasingly important role in shaping and regulating the lives of millions of human beings across the world. Calls for greater transparency from such systems have been widespread. However, there is considerable ambiguity concerning what "transparency" actually means, and therefore what greater transparency might entail. While, according to some debates, transparency requires seeing through the artefact or device, widespread calls for transparency imply seeing into different aspects of AI systems. These two notions are in apparent tension with each other, and they are present in two lively but largely disconnected debates. In this paper we aim to further analyse what these calls for transparency entail, and in so doing, clarify the sorts of transparency that we should want from AI systems. We do so by offering a taxonomy that classifies different notions of transparency. After a careful exploration of the different varieties of transparency, we show how this taxonomy can help us to navigate various domains of human-technology interactions, and more usefully discuss the relationship between technological transparency and human agency. We conclude by arguing that all of these different notions of transparency should be taken into account for designing more ethically adequate AI systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Privacy and Transparency in an AI-driven World: Does Algorithmic Transparency Fit on Data Privacy Under GDPR?
Chinara Gasimova

SSRN Electronic Journal

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Information Systems
  • Algorithms
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Information Technology
  • Ethics
  • Technology
  • Social Sciences
  • Machine Learning
  • Algorithmic Culture
  • Science and Technology Studies
  • General Data Protection Regulati...

    • Cited by

    Overtrusting robots: Setting a research agenda to mitigate overtrust in automation
    aleksei gudkov

    Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics

    There is increasing attention given to the concept of trustworthiness for artificial intelligence and robotics. However, trust is highly context-dependent, varies among cultures, and requires reflection on others’ trustworthiness, appraising whether there is enough evidence to conclude that these agents deserve to be trusted. Moreover, little research exists on what happens when too much trust is placed in robots and autonomous systems. Conceptual clarity and a shared framework for approaching overtrust are missing. In this contribution, we offer an overview of pressing topics in the context of overtrust and robots and autonomous systems. Our review mobilizes insights solicited from in-depth conversations from a multidisciplinary workshop on the subject of trust in human–robot interaction (HRI), held at a leading robotics conference in 2020. A broad range of participants brought in their expertise, allowing the formulation of a forward-looking research agenda on overtrust and automa...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Letter to the editor: “Not all biases are bad: equitable and inequitable biases in machine learning and radiology”
    Hubert Beaumont

    Insights into Imaging

    Artificial intelligence algorithms are booming in medicine, and the question of biases induced or perpetuated by these tools is a very important topic. There is a greater risk of these biases in radiology, which is now the primary diagnostic tool in modern treatment. Some authors have recently proposed an analysis framework for social inequalities and the biases at risk of being introduced into future algorithms. In our paper, we comment on the different strategies for resolving these biases. We warn that there is an even greater risk in mixing the notion of equity, the definition of which is socio-political, into the design stages of these algorithms. We believe that rather than being beneficial, this could in fact harm the main purpose of these artificial intelligence tools, which is the care of the patient.

    View PDFchevron_right
    SDGs: A Responsible Research Assessment Tool toward Impactful Business Research
    kathleen Rodenburg

    Sustainability

    An alternative research assessment (RA) tool was constructed to assess the relatedness of published business school research to the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The RA tool was created using Leximancer™, an on-line cloud-based text analytic software tool, that identified core themes within the SDG framework. Eight (8) core themes were found to define the ‘spirit of the SDGs’: Sustainable Development, Governance, Vulnerable Populations, Water, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Food Security, Restoration, and Public Health. These themes were compared to the core themes found in the content of 4576 academic articles published in 2019 in journals that comprise the Financial Times (FT) 50 list. The articles’ relatedness to the SDG themes were assessed. Overall, 10.6% of the themes found in the FT50 journal articles had an explicit relationship to the SDG themes while 24.5% were implied. Themes generated from machine learning (ML), augmented by researcher judgement...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Ethical issues deriving from the delayed adoption of artificial intelligence in medical imaging
    Giuseppe Placidi

    AI and Ethics

    Medical imaging (MI) has assumed a central role in medicine. Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized computer vision and it is also approaching to impact deeply MI. Fundamental ethical matters have raised and teams of experts around the world are involved in defining ethical borders for AI in MI. However, reading the extremely detailed proposals, it is clear that the treated ethical arguments have been completely redefined and specifically structured for AI in MI. Instead, many of them should be inherited from other technologies already in use in MI. The complete re-definition of ethical principles could produce contradictions and delays for AI adoption in MI, thus arising important ethical concerns. In this paper, potential ethical issues related to AI delay are presented: the objective is to contribute to reuse some concepts from other technologies to streamline the arguments and avoid these concerns.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Ethics-Based Auditing of Automated Decision-Making Systems: Nature, Scope, and Limitations
    Luciano Floridi

    Science and Engineering Ethics, 2021

    Important decisions that impact humans lives, livelihoods, and the natural environment are increasingly being automated. Delegating tasks to so-called automated decision-making systems (ADMS) can improve efficiency and enable new solutions. However, these benefits are coupled with ethical challenges. For example, ADMS may produce discriminatory outcomes, violate individual privacy, and undermine human self-determination. New governance mechanisms are thus needed that help organisations design and deploy ADMS in ways that are ethical, while enabling society to reap the full economic and social benefits of automation. In this article, we consider the feasibility and efficacy of ethics-based auditing (EBA) as a governance mechanism that allows organisations to validate claims made about their ADMS. Building on previous work, we define EBA as a structured process whereby an entity’s present or past behaviour is assessed for consistency with relevant principles or norms. We then offer th...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved