Zoe Porter

Zoe Porter, Ibrahim Habli, John McDermid et al.

An assurance case is a structured argument, typically produced by safety engineers, to communicate confidence that a critical or complex system, such as an aircraft, will be acceptably safe within its intended context. Assurance cases often inform third party approval of a system. One emerging proposition within the trustworthy AI and autonomous systems (AI/AS) research community is to use assurance cases to instil justified confidence that specific AI/AS will be ethically acceptable when operational in well-defined contexts. This paper substantially develops the proposition and makes it concrete. It brings together the assurance case methodology with a set of ethical principles to structure a principles-based ethics assurance argument pattern. The principles are justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for human autonomy, with the principle of transparency playing a supporting role. The argument pattern, shortened to the acronym PRAISE, is described. The objective of the proposed PRAISE argument pattern is to provide a reusable template for individual ethics assurance cases, by which engineers, developers, operators, or regulators could justify, communicate, or challenge a claim about the overall ethical acceptability of the use of a specific AI/AS in a given socio-technical context. We apply the pattern to the hypothetical use case of an autonomous robo-taxi service in a city centre.

Zoe Porter, Philippa Ryan, Phillip Morgan et al.

It is widely acknowledged that we need to establish where responsibility lies for the outputs and impacts of AI-enabled systems. This is important to achieve justice and compensation for victims of AI harms, and to inform policy and engineering practice. But without a clear, thorough understanding of what "responsibility" means, deliberations about where responsibility lies will be, at best, unfocused and incomplete and, at worst, misguided. Furthermore, AI-enabled systems exist within a wider ecosystem of actors, decisions, and governance structures, giving rise to complex networks of responsibility relations. To address these issues, this paper presents a conceptual framework of responsibility, accompanied with a graphical notation and general methodology for visualising these responsibility networks and for tracing different responsibility attributions for AI. Taking the three-part formulation "Actor A is responsible for Occurrence O," the framework unravels the concept of responsibility to clarify that there are different possibilities of who is responsible for AI, senses in which they are responsible, and aspects of events they are responsible for. The notation allows these permutations to be represented graphically. The methodology enables users to apply the framework to specific scenarios. The aim is to offer a foundation to support stakeholders from diverse disciplinary backgrounds to discuss and address complex responsibility questions in hypothesised and real-world cases involving AI. The work is illustrated by application to a fictitious scenario of a fatal collision between a crewless, AI-enabled maritime vessel in autonomous mode and a traditional, crewed vessel at sea.

Philippa Ryan, Zoe Porter, Joanna Al-Qaddoumi et al.

AI-Based Safety-Critical Systems (AI-SCS) are being increasingly deployed in the real world. These can pose a risk of harm to people and the environment. Reducing that risk is an overarching priority during development and operation. As more AI-SCS become autonomous, a layer of risk management via human intervention has been removed. Following an accident it will be important to identify causal contributions and the different responsible actors behind those to learn from mistakes and prevent similar future events. Many authors have commented on the "responsibility gap" where it is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. This is due to the complex development cycle for AI, uncertainty in AI performance, and dynamic operating environment. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating, and may not have understanding of. This cross-disciplinary paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety. We use a core concept (Actor(A) is responsible for Occurrence(O)) to create role responsibility models, producing a practical method to capture responsibility relationships and provide clarity on the previously identified responsibility issues. Our paper demonstrates the approach with two examples: a retrospective analysis of the Tempe Arizona fatal collision involving an autonomous vehicle, and a safety focused predictive role-responsibility analysis for an AI-based diabetes co-morbidity predictor. In both examples our primary focus is on safety, aiming to reduce unfair or disproportionate blame being placed on operators or developers. We present a discussion and avenues for future research.

Yan Jia, Harriet Evans, Zoe Porter et al.

In this paper we propose an advanced approach to integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare: autonomous decision support. This approach allows the AI algorithm to act autonomously for a subset of patient cases whilst serving a supportive role in other subsets of patient cases based on defined delegation criteria. By leveraging the complementary strengths of both humans and AI, it aims to deliver greater overall performance than existing human-AI teaming models. It ensures safe handling of patient cases and potentially reduces clinician review time, whilst being mindful of AI tool limitations. After setting the approach within the context of current human-AI teaming models, we outline the delegation criteria and apply them to a specific AI-based tool used in histopathology. The potential impact of the approach and the regulatory requirements for its successful implementation are then discussed.