Recently, Ankhi Das of Facebook India resigned from the company after nine-long years of service. Earlier in August this year, The Wall Street Journal had reported her refusal to take down communally provocative statements against Muslims made by Bharatiya Janata Party’s T. Raja Singh from the social media platform. This was despite the fact that these statements had been flagged internally for running afoul of the platform’s rules on hateful speech. Reportedly, for her decision, Das had cited her interest in saving “the company’s business prospects in the country” by not “punishing violations by politicians from Mr. Modi’s party”. Later in September, this had led several activist groups from across the world to demand Facebook to remove Das from her role in the company “should the audit or investigation reinforce the details of The Wall Street Journal”. While Das seemed to have succumbed to this demand without much resistance—apparently implying her admission of guilt for what she did, the grounds that compelled her exit from the company—i.e., her refusal to take down “hateful speech” as defined and mandated by Facebook in its Community Standards—do not remain that innocent either. While Facebook India’s former Public Policy Director could have been rightly reprimanded both for her unscrupulous political partisanship and profit-motives, the demands from activist groups seeking her removal from the company—even though fair in principle—ironically, ended up penalizing her failure to meet an obligation that was set by Facebook’s corporate discretion—not Indian Parliamentary deliberation and vote.
This document presents a collation of expert insights on creating and mandating ethical AI devices & applications — contributed by members of the AI Policy Exchange Editorial Network under the AI Policy Exchange Expert Vlogging Series 1.0: How to put AI ethics into practice? — for public appraisal.
Creativity has always been synonymous with humans. No other living species could boast of creativity as humans could. Even the smartest computers thrived only on the ingenious imaginations of its coders. However, that is steadily changing with highly advanced artificially intelligent systems that demonstrate incredible capabilities to autonomously (i.e., with minimal or no human input) produce creative products that would ordinarily deserve intellectual property status if created by a human. These systems could be called artificial creators and their creative products artificial creations. The use of artificial creators is likely to become a part of mainstream production practices in the creative and innovation industries sooner than we realize. When they do, intellectual property regimes (that are inherently designed to reward human creativity) must be sufficiently prepared to aptly respond to the phenomenon of what could be called artificial creativity. Needless to say, any such response must be guided by considerations of public welfare. This paper analyzes what that response ought to look like by revisiting the determinants of intellectual property and critiquing its nature and modes. This understanding of intellectual property is then applied to investigate the determinants of intellectual property in artificial creations so as to determine the intrinsic justifications for intellectual property rewards for artificial creativity, and accordingly, develop general modalities for granting intellectual property status to artificial creations. Finally, the treatment of artificial works (i.e., copyrightable artificial creations) and artificial inventions (i.e., patentable artificial creations) by current intellectual property regimes is critiqued, and specific modalities for granting intellectual property status to artificial works and artificial inventions are developed.
If MPAs in political campaigns are designed and deployed ethically, i.e., if MPAs could be mandated to refrain from attempts to undermine voter informational autonomy and corrupt voter judgment, they are likely to cease much of their threatening influence on democratic participation across the globe.
This document presents a collation of the ongoing academic research on ethical quandaries around the development, deployment and use of artificially intelligent technologies in easy-to-understand language to bridge the gap between academia and the public on the understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of AI ethics.