Convening in the early morning of CPDP’s final conference day this
“We currently see tech bro’s touring parliamentary hearings and university lectures, spreading fear, doubt and uncertainty about a speculative future of AI. This panel is less concerned with speculative problems of a distant future but will inquire how we can address the challenges that are raised through AI and data practices effectively today. We will discuss practical approaches to responsible AI beyond trickle down policy and corporate ethics washing,” Mirko said to kick off the panel.
The backdrop to the discussion is a plethora of ethics manifestos, guidelines and frameworks for ethical AI, as well as the legislation under way for regulating AI practices. From their respective perspectives the panel participants described how to close the gap between policy and practical application. David Graus reported from the practices at Randstad where impact assessments are used to evaluate possible breach of fundamental values through machine learning models. As a company engaged in the organisation of human resources, they are aware of the high impact their algorithms can have on people’s lives. Not only works Randstad has developed over the past years in the industry and academia, such as using model cards (
This resonated well with the experiences Iris Muis shared from their work with public administrations in the Netherlands. While the Netherlands have become the go-to example for bad AI and data practices, the country is now making a concerted effort to implement checks and balances on all levels of public administration. Impact assessments such as the Data Ethics Decision Aid (
Maria Koomen spoke about the need for emancipatory policies that enable civil society to utilize AI and data for improving their quality of life and fostering their political agency. In addition, the panel saw the need for general literacies, an active tech-journalism, and effective oversight. Arguing strongly for law and oversight was Paul Nemitz who criticized the shallow promise of tech companies to self-regulate. With a reference to the GDPR and its
With an eye to the practices reported by David Graus and Iris Muis, the panel could also agree that commitment to compliance is already emerging when legislation is under way. In two areas, industry and public management, practices were developed or adopted helping practitioners to bridge the gap between policy and practice. There is still a long way ahead, the panel agreed, but very promising steps in adapting existing checks and balances to the needs of a digital society are well under way.