Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • US’ AI Ethics Debate: Overcoming Barriers in Government and Tech Sector
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO19129 | US’ AI Ethics Debate: Overcoming Barriers in Government and Tech Sector
    Megan Lamberth

    28 June 2019

    download pdf

    SYNOPSIS

    The debate over ethics and norms building in artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining momentum in the US government and tech industry. Yet, while these institutions understand the need for ethics in AI, a myriad of barriers impede their ability to construct and execute on their ethical frameworks.

    COMMENTARY

    IN A period of rapid advancement in artificial intelligence and machine learning, policymakers and private sector leaders are recognising the need for ethics and norms building in artificial intelligence (AI). And while the US government and tech sector have independently made strides incorporating ethical principles into the development of AI systems, the absence of a shared language and culture between government and industry has impeded meaningful, ongoing debate.

    Tech companies have struggled to transition from drafting AI ethical frameworks to actually implementing them, an issue exacerbated by a lack of accountability in the companies internally, as well as a lack of oversight from the US Congress. Ensuring the right ethical principles are built into AI systems is no easy feat. And if the US government and tech sector want to advance the conversation on AI ethics from written charters to tangible actions, they must work through these complex ethical questions together.

    The Evolving Conversation on AI Ethics in the United States

    Earlier this year, the White House announced its “American AI Initiative,” a strategy that calls upon individual agencies to prioritise research and development into AI. And while the Initiative does not directly mention the need for ethics in AI, it does recognise the public’s mounting concern around data privacy and acknowledges the need for international cooperation to ensure confidence and trust in AI systems.

    Soon after the White House announced its AI Initiative, the Pentagon released its own strategy framed around the concept of a “human-centered approach to AI”. In an effort to dispel public fears of killer robots and showcase the beneficial uses of AI, the strategy focused not on AI and lethality, but on developing AI systems that are robust, reliable, and secure.

    In addition to the Pentagon’s strategy, the Defence Innovation Board (DiB), an advisory council made up of primarily private industry leaders, is in the latter stages of developing a series of “AI Principles for Defence.” The DiB hopes these principles will guide the Pentagon’s development and use of AI systems moving forward.

    On the other side of the country, giants in the tech community — Microsoft, Google, Facebook, IBM, among others — have announced their own initiatives in AI ethics. These initiatives have often come in the form of a series of ethical principles, an independent ethics board, or the sponsorship of a research lab studying AI ethics and norms.

    Barriers to Building Ethics into AI Systems

    The US government and the tech industry have made progress on developing ethical approaches in AI, yet both communities are struggling to move from written declarations of intent toward meaningful, transparent action. This transition from word to deed is obstructed by a number of barriers originating from both the government and tech sector.

    Barrier #1: The relationship between the US government and the tech industry is tainted by mistrust and a lack of a shared language and culture.  

    A chasm between the tech sector and the US government, particularly the Defence Department, has thwarted an ongoing dialogue on what a fair and ethical AI-enabled system might look like and how it should be deployed. Mistrust permeates the relationship between the two communities and is accentuated by a lack of a shared language and culture.

    The strained relationship between the Defence Department and tech sector was on heightened display in the aftermath of Google’s withdrawal from the Pentagon’s Project Maven. Google employees penned a letter to the company’s leadership declaring that “Google should not be in the business of war”.

    While employees from Google and the Defence Department may have differing views for how AI should be used, both entities want to ensure that the AI systems they develop and deploy are trustworthy, responsible, and secure.

    The US government and tech sector need each other to help navigate these complex but critically important questions around ethics and norms in AI. Mending this rift is essential to ensuring that AI algorithms being developed are fair and abide by ethical standards.

    Barrier #2: Tech companies lack oversight and accountability mechanisms to execute on and abide by their own ethical principles. 

    The ethical frameworks developed by many companies in the tech community reflect common themes: the desire to promote AI for social good, to reduce bias in AI algorithms, and to be accountable and transparent to the company’s massive user base. While these principles seem to reflect a prioritisation and embracement of ethics in AI, the actual levers of implementation for these principles are opaque. And without transparency, oversight, and accountability mechanisms in place, there is little to incentivise or compel private sector companies to abide by and implement the ethical standards they propagate.

    Barrier #3: US congressional engagement is needed to hold the tech sector accountable, but tech literacy amongst congressional members poses a substantial challenge.

    Over the past year, numerous congressional hearings, most notably a hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, have made it abundantly clear that there is a significant dearth of tech literacy amongst congressional members. And in the absence of familiarity with these technologies that are rapidly being integrated into American society, it will become increasingly difficult for Congress to perform its critical regulatory and oversight functions.

    Overcoming Barriers to Building Ethics into AI Systems

    To ensure the AI systems built today and deployed tomorrow are responsible and trustworthy, the US government and tech sector must establish mechanisms and safeguards for accountability and oversight. And these mechanisms for oversight must be transparent to the population primarily affected by these advancements — the American public.

    In the private sector, accountability should come from both internal and external sources. Internally, companies should establish an independent review board, similar to those that exist at universities and hospitals, to ensure a company abides by its adopted ethical standards.

    Externally, the US Congress must begin to flex its oversight and regulatory powers and hold tech companies accountable. The proposed Algorithmic Accountability Act, which would require companies to correct algorithms that are biased, inaccurate, and discriminatory, would be an ideal first step.

    But to ensure that Congress remains effective in this oversight role, increased tech literacy for congressional members is key. To legislate on these issues, lawmakers should hire additional staffers focused on emerging technologies, as well as restore the Office of Technology Assessment, the expert body that advised politicians on technological issues until it was defunded two decades ago.

    Most importantly, to ensure the US is a leader in building AI systems that are fair and trustworthy, the government and tech sector must work in tandem on these issues. Because the barriers to ensuring ethics are built into AI systems are steep, but certainly not insurmountable.

    About the Author

    Megan Lamberth is a researcher for the Technology and National Security Programme at the Center for a New American Security. She contributed this to RSIS Commentary in cooperation with RSIS’ Military Transformations Programme. This is part of a series.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / Non-Traditional Security / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
    comments powered by Disqus

    SYNOPSIS

    The debate over ethics and norms building in artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining momentum in the US government and tech industry. Yet, while these institutions understand the need for ethics in AI, a myriad of barriers impede their ability to construct and execute on their ethical frameworks.

    COMMENTARY

    IN A period of rapid advancement in artificial intelligence and machine learning, policymakers and private sector leaders are recognising the need for ethics and norms building in artificial intelligence (AI). And while the US government and tech sector have independently made strides incorporating ethical principles into the development of AI systems, the absence of a shared language and culture between government and industry has impeded meaningful, ongoing debate.

    Tech companies have struggled to transition from drafting AI ethical frameworks to actually implementing them, an issue exacerbated by a lack of accountability in the companies internally, as well as a lack of oversight from the US Congress. Ensuring the right ethical principles are built into AI systems is no easy feat. And if the US government and tech sector want to advance the conversation on AI ethics from written charters to tangible actions, they must work through these complex ethical questions together.

    The Evolving Conversation on AI Ethics in the United States

    Earlier this year, the White House announced its “American AI Initiative,” a strategy that calls upon individual agencies to prioritise research and development into AI. And while the Initiative does not directly mention the need for ethics in AI, it does recognise the public’s mounting concern around data privacy and acknowledges the need for international cooperation to ensure confidence and trust in AI systems.

    Soon after the White House announced its AI Initiative, the Pentagon released its own strategy framed around the concept of a “human-centered approach to AI”. In an effort to dispel public fears of killer robots and showcase the beneficial uses of AI, the strategy focused not on AI and lethality, but on developing AI systems that are robust, reliable, and secure.

    In addition to the Pentagon’s strategy, the Defence Innovation Board (DiB), an advisory council made up of primarily private industry leaders, is in the latter stages of developing a series of “AI Principles for Defence.” The DiB hopes these principles will guide the Pentagon’s development and use of AI systems moving forward.

    On the other side of the country, giants in the tech community — Microsoft, Google, Facebook, IBM, among others — have announced their own initiatives in AI ethics. These initiatives have often come in the form of a series of ethical principles, an independent ethics board, or the sponsorship of a research lab studying AI ethics and norms.

    Barriers to Building Ethics into AI Systems

    The US government and the tech industry have made progress on developing ethical approaches in AI, yet both communities are struggling to move from written declarations of intent toward meaningful, transparent action. This transition from word to deed is obstructed by a number of barriers originating from both the government and tech sector.

    Barrier #1: The relationship between the US government and the tech industry is tainted by mistrust and a lack of a shared language and culture.  

    A chasm between the tech sector and the US government, particularly the Defence Department, has thwarted an ongoing dialogue on what a fair and ethical AI-enabled system might look like and how it should be deployed. Mistrust permeates the relationship between the two communities and is accentuated by a lack of a shared language and culture.

    The strained relationship between the Defence Department and tech sector was on heightened display in the aftermath of Google’s withdrawal from the Pentagon’s Project Maven. Google employees penned a letter to the company’s leadership declaring that “Google should not be in the business of war”.

    While employees from Google and the Defence Department may have differing views for how AI should be used, both entities want to ensure that the AI systems they develop and deploy are trustworthy, responsible, and secure.

    The US government and tech sector need each other to help navigate these complex but critically important questions around ethics and norms in AI. Mending this rift is essential to ensuring that AI algorithms being developed are fair and abide by ethical standards.

    Barrier #2: Tech companies lack oversight and accountability mechanisms to execute on and abide by their own ethical principles. 

    The ethical frameworks developed by many companies in the tech community reflect common themes: the desire to promote AI for social good, to reduce bias in AI algorithms, and to be accountable and transparent to the company’s massive user base. While these principles seem to reflect a prioritisation and embracement of ethics in AI, the actual levers of implementation for these principles are opaque. And without transparency, oversight, and accountability mechanisms in place, there is little to incentivise or compel private sector companies to abide by and implement the ethical standards they propagate.

    Barrier #3: US congressional engagement is needed to hold the tech sector accountable, but tech literacy amongst congressional members poses a substantial challenge.

    Over the past year, numerous congressional hearings, most notably a hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, have made it abundantly clear that there is a significant dearth of tech literacy amongst congressional members. And in the absence of familiarity with these technologies that are rapidly being integrated into American society, it will become increasingly difficult for Congress to perform its critical regulatory and oversight functions.

    Overcoming Barriers to Building Ethics into AI Systems

    To ensure the AI systems built today and deployed tomorrow are responsible and trustworthy, the US government and tech sector must establish mechanisms and safeguards for accountability and oversight. And these mechanisms for oversight must be transparent to the population primarily affected by these advancements — the American public.

    In the private sector, accountability should come from both internal and external sources. Internally, companies should establish an independent review board, similar to those that exist at universities and hospitals, to ensure a company abides by its adopted ethical standards.

    Externally, the US Congress must begin to flex its oversight and regulatory powers and hold tech companies accountable. The proposed Algorithmic Accountability Act, which would require companies to correct algorithms that are biased, inaccurate, and discriminatory, would be an ideal first step.

    But to ensure that Congress remains effective in this oversight role, increased tech literacy for congressional members is key. To legislate on these issues, lawmakers should hire additional staffers focused on emerging technologies, as well as restore the Office of Technology Assessment, the expert body that advised politicians on technological issues until it was defunded two decades ago.

    Most importantly, to ensure the US is a leader in building AI systems that are fair and trustworthy, the government and tech sector must work in tandem on these issues. Because the barriers to ensuring ethics are built into AI systems are steep, but certainly not insurmountable.

    About the Author

    Megan Lamberth is a researcher for the Technology and National Security Programme at the Center for a New American Security. She contributed this to RSIS Commentary in cooperation with RSIS’ Military Transformations Programme. This is part of a series.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / Non-Traditional Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info