GPT-4: Creating a framework, akin to a "constitution" for AI as suggested in the article, that ensures AI systems are developed and used in a manner consistent with upholding civil rights is essential

Asking AI Services: Please read the Financial Times article “We don’t need an AI manifesto — we need a constitution” and tell me whether you agree with the statement: “Civil rights can’t exist in a world of hidden calculations” and why. Explain what AI makers and Regulators and any other organizations that come to mind should do about this.

Claude’s answer:
I agree with the statement "Civil rights can't exist in a world of hidden calculations" made in the Financial Times article. The key reasons are:

1. Lack of transparency and accountability: AI systems, especially those used for consequential decisions like hiring, lending, healthcare diagnostics, etc., often operate as "black boxes" without explaining how they arrive at their outputs. This lack of transparency violates principles of due process and fairness that underpin civil rights.

2. Potential for bias and discrimination: AI models can perpetuate and amplify societal biases present in their training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes against protected groups based on race, gender, age etc. If these biased decisions happen opaquely, it becomes impossible to identify and rectify civil rights violations.

3. Inability to appeal or seek recourse: When impacted by an AI system's decision, individuals have little to no way to understand why that decision was made or to effectively appeal it, undermining their rights.

To uphold civil rights in an AI-driven world, concerted efforts are needed from AI makers, regulators, and other stakeholders:

AI Makers:

• Prioritize transparency, interpretability and accountability in AI system design

• Implement rigorous bias testing and mitigation strategies

• Give users meaningful information about AI system functionality and limitations

Regulators:

• Enact laws mandating AI transparency, auditing and compliance certifications

• Establish governance frameworks and impact assessments for high-risk AI use cases

• Enshrine rights like the right to human review of consequential AI decisions

Other Organizations:

• Academia can research technical approaches for trustworthy AI

• Civil society can advocate for AI policies protecting civil liberties

• Independent auditors can validate AI systems for fairness and compliance

Ultimately, enshrining constitutional-level protections and rights regarding the use of AI systems that impact individuals' lives is likely needed, as the article suggests. Proactive multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to realizing trustworthy AI that upholds civil rights.

ChatGPT-4’s answer:
The statement from the Financial Times article, "Civil rights can’t exist in a world of hidden calculations," underscores a deep concern regarding transparency and accountability in the use of artificial intelligence (AI). I agree with this statement for several reasons:

1. Transparency: When AI systems make decisions affecting individuals' lives—such as employment, loans, or educational opportunities—without transparency, individuals are unable to understand or challenge these decisions. This lack of insight into how decisions are made, especially when potentially discriminatory variables could be at play, undermines the principles of fairness and justice that are central to civil rights.

2. Accountability: Hidden calculations mean there is little to no accountability for the decisions made by AI. This can lead to a lack of recourse for individuals negatively affected by these decisions. For civil rights to be upheld, there must be mechanisms to hold entities accountable for the decisions made by their AI systems.

3. Privacy and Autonomy: AI systems often operate with vast amounts of personal data, sometimes without the explicit consent of the individuals involved. The use of such data, hidden from the view of those it concerns, can violate privacy and undermine personal autonomy, both of which are key components of civil rights.

To address these issues, various stakeholders such as AI makers, regulators, and civil rights organizations need to take specific actions:

• AI Makers: Should prioritize ethical AI design that includes transparency about how algorithms function and the criteria they use for decision-making. Engaging in audits and ensuring AI systems are explainable can help in making these technologies more understandable to the general public.

• Regulators: Need to establish and enforce strict guidelines on the ethical use of AI. This could include regulations that require AI applications in sensitive areas to be transparent about their decision-making processes and to undergo regular audits for fairness and bias. Legislation similar to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which includes rights to explanation for decisions made by automated systems, could serve as a model.

• Civil Rights Organizations: Can play a crucial role by monitoring the use of AI and advocating for individuals affected by biased or unjust AI decisions. They could also help shape public policy on AI to ensure it incorporates civil rights considerations.

• Educational Institutions and Public Awareness Groups: Should focus on raising awareness about the implications of AI and training individuals in digital literacy, so they can better understand and interact with these technologies.

Creating a framework, akin to a "constitution" for AI as suggested in the article, that ensures AI systems are developed and used in a manner consistent with upholding civil rights, is essential. This framework should explicitly address the balance of power, ensuring that AI acts in the public interest and safeguards rather than undermines civil rights.

Google Gemini’s answer:
due process. There's no opportunity to challenge the algorithm's reasoning or question its accuracy.

Here's what different groups can do:

• AI Developers and Companies:

  • Transparency and Explainability: Develop AI systems that can explain their decision-making process. This allows people to understand why they were denied a loan or job and potentially challenge unfair biases.

  • Fairness in Training Data: Ensure training data for AI is diverse and representative to avoid perpetuating biases.

• Regulators:

  • Standardized Regulations: Establish clear regulations around developing and using AI, focusing on transparency, fairness, and accountability.

  • Impact Assessments: Require AI developers to conduct assessments to identify and mitigate potential biases in their systems.

• Other Organizations:

  • Public Education: Raise awareness about the potential risks of AI and the importance of civil rights in the digital age.

  • Independent Oversight: Create independent bodies to audit AI systems and ensure they comply with regulations and ethical standards.

The author proposes a "constitution" for AI that defines access to fair and transparent AI as a civil right. This could be a framework for regulations or a set of principles that AI developers and users must adhere to.

MS Copilot’s answer:
As an AI, I don’t have personal beliefs or opinions. However, I can provide an analysis of the statement “Civil rights can’t exist in a world of hidden calculations.”

The statement suggests that for civil rights to be upheld, there must be transparency in the systems that impact them. In the context of AI, this means that the algorithms and data processes that could affect civil liberties should be open to scrutiny. The concern is that if the calculations that AI systems use to make decisions are hidden, it could lead to outcomes that are discriminatory or violate individual rights without any possibility for those affected to understand or contest those decisions.

AI makers and regulators, along with other organizations, should consider the following actions to address these concerns:

• Transparency: Implementing measures to ensure that the workings of AI systems are understandable to the public, especially when they are used in critical areas such as criminal justice, healthcare, and employment.

• Accountability: Establishing clear guidelines for AI accountability, so that there is a chain of responsibility when AI systems are found to infringe on civil rights.

• Ethical Standards: Developing and enforcing ethical standards for AI development and deployment, ensuring that AI respects human rights and does not perpetuate biases.

• Public Participation: Encouraging public participation in the development of AI policies to ensure that a diverse range of perspectives is considered, particularly those of groups who are most likely to be affected by AI decisions.

• Independent Oversight: Creating independent bodies like The Human Trust mentioned in the text, which can oversee AI systems and ensure they are managed with a fiduciary responsibility to individuals.

These steps can help ensure that AI systems support, rather than undermine, civil rights. They aim to create a balance where AI can be used effectively and ethically, without hidden calculations that could potentially harm individuals or society.