Regulation of algorithms, oralgorithmic regulation, is the creation of laws, rules and public sector policies for promotion andregulation ofalgorithms, particularly inartificial intelligence andmachine learning.[1][2][3] For the subset of AI algorithms, the termregulation of artificial intelligence is used. The regulatory and policy landscape for artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union.[4] Regulation of AI is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks, but challenging.[5] Another emerging topic is theregulation ofblockchain algorithms (Use of the smart contracts must be regulated) and is mentioned along with regulation of AI algorithms.[6] Many countries have enactedregulations of high frequency trades, which is shifting due to technological progress into the realm of AI algorithms.[citation needed]
The motivation for regulation of algorithms is the apprehension oflosing control over the algorithms, whose impact on human life increases. Multiple countries have already introduced regulations in case of automatedcredit score calculation—right to explanation is mandatory for those algorithms.[7][8] For example, The IEEE has begun developing a new standard to explicitly address ethical issues and the values of potential future users.[9] Bias, transparency, and ethics concerns have emerged with respect to the use of algorithms in diverse domains ranging from criminal justice[10] to healthcare[11]—many fear that artificial intelligence could replicate existing social inequalities along race, class, gender, and sexuality lines.[12]
In 2016,Joy Buolamwini foundedAlgorithmic Justice League after a personal experience with biased facial detection software in order to raise awareness of the social implications of artificial intelligence through art and research.[13]
In 2017Elon Musk advocated regulation of algorithms in the context of theexistential risk from artificial general intelligence.[14][15][16] According toNPR, theTesla CEO was "clearly not thrilled" to be advocating for government scrutiny that could impact his own industry, but believed the risks of going completely without oversight are too high: "Normally the way regulations are set up is when a bunch of bad things happen, there's a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry. It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilisation."[14]
In response, some politicians expressed skepticism about the wisdom of regulating a technology that is still in development.[15] Responding both to Musk and to February 2017 proposals by European Union lawmakers to regulate AI and robotics, Intel CEOBrian Krzanich has argued that artificial intelligence is in its infancy and that it is too early to regulate the technology.[16] Instead of trying to regulate the technology itself, some scholars suggest to rather develop common norms including requirements for the testing and transparency of algorithms, possibly in combination with some form of warranty.[17] One suggestion has been for the development of a global governance board to regulate AI development.[18] In 2020, the European Union published its draft strategy paper for promoting and regulating AI.[19]
Algorithmic tacit collusion is a legally dubious antitrust practise committed by means of algorithms, which the courts are not able to prosecute.[20] This danger concerns scientists and regulators in EU, US and beyond.[20]European CommissionerMargrethe Vestager mentioned an early example of algorithmic tacit collusion in her speech on "Algorithms and Collusion" on March 16, 2017, described as follows:[21]
"A few years ago, two companies were selling a textbook called The Making of a Fly. One of those sellers used an algorithm which essentially matched its rival’s price. That rival had an algorithm which always set a price 27% higher than the first. The result was that prices kept spiralling upwards, until finally someone noticed what was going on, and adjusted the price manually. By that time, the book was selling – or rather, not selling – for 23 million dollars a copy."
In 2018, the Netherlands employed an algorithmic system SyRI (Systeem Risico Indicatie) to detect citizens perceived being high risk for committingwelfare fraud, which quietly flagged thousands of people to investigators.[22] This caused a public protest. The district court of Hague shut down SyRI referencingArticle 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).[23]
In 2020, algorithms assigning exam grades to students in the UK sparked open protest under the banner "Fuck the algorithm."[24] This protest was successful and the grades were taken back.[25]
In 2024, the Munich Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights was introduced as part of growing international efforts to regulate artificial intelligence through a human rights lens. Developed through a collaborative drafting process involving scholars from the Technical University of Munich, Stellenbosch University, Ulster University, and KNUST, the initiative calls for an international conversation on a binding treaty to safeguard human rights and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the age of AI.[26][non-primary source needed][27][28]
AI law and regulations can be divided into three main topics, namely governance of autonomous intelligence systems, responsibility and accountability for the systems, and privacy and safety issues.[5] The development of public sector strategies for management and regulation of AI has been increasingly deemed necessary at the local, national,[29] and international levels[19] and in fields from public service management[30] to law enforcement,[19] the financial sector,[29] robotics,[31] the military,[32] and international law.[33][34] There are many concerns that there is not enough visibility and monitoring of AI in these sectors.[35] In the United States financial sector, for example, there have been calls for theConsumer Financial Protection Bureau to more closely examine source code and algorithms when conducting audits of financial institutions' non-public data.[36]
In April 2016, for the first time in more than two decades, the European Parliament adopted a set of comprehensive regulations for the collection, storage, and use of personal information, theGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)1 (European Union, Parliament and Council 2016).[6] The GDPR's policy on the right of citizens to receive an explanation for algorithmic decisions highlights the pressing importance of human interpretability in algorithm design.[42]
In 2017, the U.K. Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill imposes liability on the owner of an uninsured automated vehicle when driving itself and makes provisions for cases where the owner has made “unauthorized alterations” to the vehicle or failed to update its software. Further ethical issues arise when, e.g., aself-driving car swerves to avoid a pedestrian and causes a fatal accident.[45]
There is a concept of algorithm certification emerging as a method of regulating algorithms. Algorithm certification involves auditing whether the algorithm used during the life cycle 1) conforms to the protocoled requirements (e.g., for correctness, completeness, consistency, and accuracy); 2) satisfies the standards, practices, and conventions; and 3) solves the right problem (e.g., correctly model physical laws), and satisfies the intended use and user needs in the operational environment.[9]
Blockchain systems provide transparent and fixed records of transactions and hereby contradict the goal of the EuropeanGDPR, which is to give individuals full control of their private data.[47][48]
By implementing theDecree on Development of Digital Economy,Belarus has become the first-ever country to legalizesmart contracts. Belarusian lawyer Denis Aleinikov is considered to be the author of a smart contract legal concept introduced by the decree.[49][50][51] There are strong arguments that the existing US state laws are already a sound basis for the smart contracts' enforceability —Arizona,Nevada,Ohio andTennessee have amended their laws specifically to allow for the enforceability of blockchain-based contracts nevertheless.[52]
There have been proposals to regulate robots and autonomous algorithms. These include:
the South Korean Government's proposal in 2007 of a Robot Ethics Charter;
a 2011 proposal from the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of five ethical “principles for designers, builders, and users of robots”;
the Association for Computing Machinery's seven principles for algorithmic transparency and accountability, published in 2017.[9]
JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) — the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in theO.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."[55]
^Law Library of Congress (U.S.). Global Legal Research Directorate, issuing body.Regulation of artificial intelligence in selected jurisdictions.OCLC1110727808.
^Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence".Business Horizons.62:15–25.doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004.S2CID158433736.
^abEzrachi, A.; Stucke, M. E. (13 March 2020). "Sustainable and unchallenged algorithmic tacit collusion".Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property.17 (2).ISSN1549-8271.
^Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (2019-01-03). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society".Contemporary Social Science.16 (2):170–184.doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803.ISSN2158-2041.S2CID59298502.
^United States. Defense Innovation Board.AI principles : recommendations on the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense.OCLC1126650738.
^Asimov, Isaac (1950). "Runaround".I, Robot (The Isaac Asimov Collection ed.). New York City: Doubleday. p. 40.ISBN978-0-385-42304-5.This is anexact transcription of the laws. They also appear in the front of the book, and in both places there isno "to" in the 2nd law.{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
