• Home
  • 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 (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • 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 (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

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

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

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

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • Singapore Defence Technology Summit – US’ AI Ethics Debate: Overcoming Barriers in Government and Tech Sector
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO19129 | Singapore Defence Technology Summit – US’ AI Ethics Debate: Overcoming Barriers in Government and Tech Sector
    Megan Lamberth

    28 June 2019

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    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: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / Non-Traditional Security / Global / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 28/06/2019

    comments powered by Disqus
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    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: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / Cybersecurity, Biosecurity and Nuclear Safety / Non-Traditional Security

    Last updated on 28/06/2019

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    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
    Singapore Defence Technology Summit – US’ AI Ethics Debate: Overcoming Barriers in Government and Tech Sector

    SYNOPSIS

    The debate over ethics and norms building in artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining momentum in the US government and tech industry. Yet, while th ...
    more info