Fairness in agreement with European values

An interdisciplinary perspective on ai regulation

Conference paper (2022)

Authors

Alejandra Bringas Colmenarejo University of Southampton
L.N. Nannini Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
A. Rieger Web Information Systems - EEMCS
Kristen M. Scott Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Xuan Zhao Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Gourab K. Patro Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Gjergji Kasneci Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda University of Klagenfurt
Research Group
Web Information Systems (EEMCS) (TU Delft)
Copyright: © 2022 Alejandra Bringas Colmenarejo, L.N. Nannini, A. Rieger, Kristen M. Scott, Xuan Zhao, Gourab K. Patro, Gjergji Kasneci, Katharina Kinder-Kurlanda
DOI
help_outline
https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534158
Localization Standardization Ai regulation Consequential ethics Deontological ethics Egalitarian welfare Eu ai proposal Utilitarian welfare
More Info
expand_more

Published Date

2022

Language

English

Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Faculty

Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science

Department

Software Technology

Research Group

Web Information Systems

Abstract

With increasing digitalization, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous. AI-based systems to identify, optimize, automate, and scale solutions to complex economic and societal problems are being proposed and implemented. This has motivated regulation efforts, including the Proposal of an EU AI Act. This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them, focusing on (but not limited to) the Proposal. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. Then, we map these perspectives along three axes of interests: (i) Standardization vs. Localization, (ii) Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism, and (iii) Consequential vs. Deontological ethics which leads us to identify a pattern of common arguments and tensions between these axes. Positioning the discussion within the axes of interest and with a focus on reconciling the key tensions, we identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.