RESUMO
Algorithmic worker surveillance and productivity scoring tools powered by artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming prevalent and ubiquitous technologies in the workplace. These tools are applied across white and blue-collar jobs, and gig economy roles. In the absence of legal protections, and strong collective action capabilities, workers are in an imbalanced power position to challenge the practices of employers using these tools. Use of such tools undermines human dignity and human rights. These tools are also built on fundamentally erroneous assumptions. The primer section of this paper provides stakeholders (policymakers, advocates, workers, and unions) with insights into assumptions embedded in workplace surveillance and scoring technologies, how employers use these systems which impact human rights. The roadmap section lays out actionable recommendations for policy and regulatory changes which can be enacted by federal agencies and labor unions. The paper uses major policy frameworks developed or supported by the United States as the foundation for policy recommendations. These are Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Principles for the Responsible Stewardship of Trustworthy AI (OECD AI Principles), Fair Information Practices (FIPs) and the White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.
RESUMO
Public entities around the world are increasingly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic decision-making systems to provide public services or to use their enforcement powers. The rationale for the public sector to use these systems is similar to private sector: increase efficiency and speed of transactions and lower the costs. However, public entities are first and foremost established to meet the needs of the members of society and protect the safety, fundamental rights, and wellbeing of those they serve. Currently AI systems are deployed by the public sector at various administrative levels without robust due diligence, monitoring, or transparency. This paper critically maps out the challenges in procurement of AI systems by public entities and the long-term implications necessitating AI-specific procurement guidelines and processes. This dual-prong exploration includes the new complexities and risks introduced by AI systems, and the institutional capabilities impacting the decision-making process. AI-specific public procurement guidelines are urgently needed to protect fundamental rights and due process.
RESUMO
The recent incidents involving Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Google have triggered an important discussion emblematic of issues arising from the practice of AI Ethics research. We offer this paper and its bibliography as a resource to the global community of AI Ethics Researchers who argue for the protection and freedom of this research community. Corporate, as well as academic research settings, involve responsibility, duties, dissent, and conflicts of interest. This article is meant to provide a reference point at the beginning of this decade regarding matters of consensus and disagreement on how to enact AI Ethics for the good of our institutions, society, and individuals. We have herein identified issues that arise at the intersection of information technology, socially encoded behaviors, and biases, and individual researchers' work and responsibilities. We revisit some of the most pressing problems with AI decision-making and examine the difficult relationships between corporate interests and the early years of AI Ethics research. We propose several possible actions we can take collectively to support researchers throughout the field of AI Ethics, especially those from marginalized groups who may experience even more barriers in speaking out and having their research amplified. We promote the global community of AI Ethics researchers and the evolution of standards accepted in our profession guiding a technological future that makes life better for all.