The UK government will publish a public register of artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic tools used by central government, following concerns of inherent racism and bias in these technologies. This decision follows challenges from campaigners highlighting a lack of transparency regarding the deployment of such systems. Notable cases include the Home Office’s suspension of a visa sorting algorithm accused of racial discrimination and concerns over an algorithm detecting sham marriages. The government’s Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has warned about biases in new technologies, leading to a mandatory algorithmic transparency standard for public bodies. Although some records have been published, significant departments like the Home Office have not yet reported their controversial systems. The Department for Work and Pensions is also facing scrutiny for its use of AI in fraud detection, with legal action being considered by advocacy groups.
| name | description | change | 10-year | driving-force | relevancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Register of AI Tools | Central government to publish a register of AI tools used, increasing transparency. | Shift from secrecy in AI usage to transparency and accountability in public sector. | In 10 years, public trust in AI governance could significantly increase due to transparency measures. | Growing public demand for accountability and ethical standards in AI deployment in government. | 4 |
| Legal Challenges to AI Bias | Campaigners increasingly challenge AI systems for potential bias and discrimination. | Transition from unchallenged use of biased AI systems to heightened scrutiny and legal accountability. | In a decade, legal frameworks may evolve to better protect against bias in AI decision-making. | Rising awareness and activism surrounding racial and social justice issues in technology. | 5 |
| Algorithmic Transparency Standard | A standard for algorithmic transparency now mandatory for public sector departments. | Change from voluntary transparency to mandatory reporting on AI tool usage. | Ten years from now, algorithmic transparency may become a norm in all sectors, not just public. | Regulatory pressure and societal demand for responsible AI practices will drive this change. | 5 |
| AI in Fraud Detection | DWP employing AI to detect fraud in universal credit claims and other areas. | Shift from traditional fraud detection methods to AI-driven solutions in welfare systems. | In ten years, AI may dominate fraud detection across various sectors, improving efficiency and accuracy. | The need for improved efficiency in public services and fraud prevention is a key motivator. | 4 |
| Campaigns for Fair AI Use | Organizations like PLP actively campaign for fair and non-discriminatory AI practices. | A move towards accountability and fairness in the deployment of AI in government services. | In a decade, campaigns may lead to established norms for fairness and non-discrimination in AI. | Public advocacy for justice and equality is pushing for reform in AI usage. | 4 |
| Limited AI Transparency Records | Only a few AI models have been documented in the public transparency repository. | Shift from underreporting AI tools to comprehensive documentation of all AI systems used. | In ten years, comprehensive public records of AI tools may be standard practice for all organizations. | Demand for transparency and accountability in AI systems is increasing among stakeholders. | 3 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Bias in AI algorithms | AI tools used in government may contain entrenched racism and bias, affecting decision-making processes like visa applications and benefit claims. | 5 |
| Lack of transparency in deployment of AI | There has been insufficient transparency on the existence and usage of AI systems in government, raising concerns over accountability. | 4 |
| Potential for racial discrimination | Certain nationalities may be unfairly targeted by algorithmic decisions, leading to discrimination in visa processing and investigations. | 5 |
| Insufficient regulation of AI use in public sector | The slow progress in publishing AI usage records may lead to unchecked biases and misuse of technology in government services. | 4 |
| Inadequate human oversight in AI implementation | While AI technology has potential benefits, lack of proper human oversight could lead to harmful consequences in decision-making. | 4 |
| Challenges in accountability for AI decisions | Government departments are resistant to disclose operational details of AI tools which can hinder accountability and trust. | 5 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Increased Demand for Transparency in AI Usage | There is a growing call for public bodies to disclose information about AI tools to ensure fairness and accountability. | 5 |
| Legal Challenges Against AI Algorithms | Campaigners are increasingly seeking legal action against government algorithms that may perpetuate bias or discrimination. | 4 |
| Public Scrutiny of Algorithmic Decision-Making | Public bodies are facing heightened scrutiny regarding the deployment and impact of algorithmic tools in decision-making processes. | 5 |
| Establishment of Regulatory Standards for AI | The introduction of mandatory reporting standards for AI usage signifies a move towards regulated deployment of technology in public services. | 5 |
| Advocacy for Fairness Assessments in AI | Organizations are advocating for fairness analyses to be conducted and published for AI systems to ensure they do not discriminate. | 4 |
| Development of Public Registers for AI Tools | There is a trend towards maintaining public registers that document the AI tools used by government bodies to enhance transparency. | 5 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Intelligence | AI technologies being deployed by central government for various decision-making processes, including fraud detection and immigration controls. | 5 |
| Algorithmic Transparency Standards | Standards proposed for public bodies to publish details about AI and algorithmic tools to ensure transparency and fairness. | 4 |
| Automated Decision-Making Tools | Tools used by government departments to automate decision processes, requiring transparency and oversight to mitigate bias. | 4 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination | Concerns over AI tools used by the government that may perpetuate or amplify existing biases affecting marginalized communities. | 5 |
| Lack of Transparency in AI Deployment | The need for public bodies to disclose details about AI systems being used, including their purpose and potential biases. | 4 |
| Regulation of AI in Public Sector | Growing calls for stricter regulations and standards for the use of AI technologies within government departments. | 4 |
| Public Trust in AI Technologies | Importance of maintaining public trust through transparency and ethical use of AI in public services. | 5 |
| Legal Challenges to AI Usage | Potential for increased legal action against government bodies regarding the use of AI and its implications for discrimination. | 3 |
| Human Oversight in AI Systems | Advocacy for human oversight in automated decision-making processes to prevent bias and discrimination. | 4 |
| Need for Comprehensive AI Impact Assessments | Requirement for thorough assessments of AI systems to ensure fairness and non-discrimination before deployment. | 4 |