Artificial intelligence is not only increasingly used in business and administration contexts, but a race for its regulation is also underway, with the EU spearheading the efforts. Contrary to existing literature, this article suggests, however, that the most far-reaching and effective EU rules for AI applications in the digital economy will not be contained in the proposed AI Act - but have just been enacted in the Digital Markets Act. We analyze the impact of the DMA and related EU acts on AI models and their underlying data across four key areas: disclosure requirements; the regulation of AI training data; access rules; and the regime for fair rankings. The paper demonstrates that fairness, in the sense of the DMA, goes beyond traditionally protected categories of non-discrimination law on which scholarship at the intersection of AI and law has so far largely focused on. Rather, we draw on competition law and the FRAND criteria known from intellectual property law to interpret and refine the DMA provisions on fair rankings. Moreover, we show how, based on CJEU jurisprudence, a coherent interpretation of the concept of non-discrimination in both traditional non-discrimination and competition law may be found. The final part sketches specific proposals for a comprehensive framework of transparency, access, and fairness under the DMA and beyond.

本文确定了数据驱动系统中的数据最小化和目的限制的两个核心数据保护原理。虽然当代数据处理实践似乎与这些原则的赔率达到差异，但我们证明系统可以在技术上使用的数据远远少于目前的数据。此观察是我们详细的技术法律分析的起点，揭示了妨碍了妨碍了实现的障碍，并举例说明了在实践中应用数据保护法的意外权衡。我们的分析旨在向辩论提供关于数据保护对欧盟人工智能发展的影响，为数据控制员，监管机构和研究人员提供实际行动点。

The optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final, and much-anticipated, cornerstone of AI regulation in the EU. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and other countries. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm's use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court. This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law-more particularly, through Title

随着自动决策解决方案越来越多地应用于日常生活的各个方面，因此为各种利益相关者（即决策者，决策者，审计师，监管机构...）产生有意义的解释能力变得至关重要。在本文中，我们提出了一种解释的分类法，该分类是作为该项目目的的整体“解释性划分”方法的一部分。该分类法的建立是为了为在组织层面设定的各种监管框架或政策所引起的广泛要求提供解释，以转化高级合规性要求或满足业务需求。分类法包括九个维度。它被用作被认为是侦探控制的解释的独立分类器，以帮助支持性自动化的合规策略。通过一系列示例证明了分类法的可机械性格式，并以轻度本体的形式提供了使用这种分类法的解释性的好处。

2021年4月，欧洲委员会提出了对人工智能的规定，称为AI法案。我们概述了该法案，分析了其影响，借鉴了当代AI对过去四十年来欧盟产品安全制度的实践的研究。AI行为的各个方面，例如不同风险水平的不同规则，有意义。但我们还发现，AI法案草案的一些规定令人惊讶的法律影响，而其他人可能在达到其指定的目标方面可能在很大程度上无效。几个总体方面，包括执法制度和最大统一的风险抢先抢占合法的国家AI政策，提出重大关注。这些问题应作为立法过程中的优先考虑。

过去十年已经看到人工智能（AI）的显着进展，这导致了用于解决各种问题的算法。然而，通过增加模型复杂性并采用缺乏透明度的黑匣子AI模型来满足这种成功。为了响应这种需求，已经提出了说明的AI（Xai）以使AI更透明，从而提高关键结构域中的AI。虽然有几个关于Xai主题的Xai主题的评论，但在Xai中发现了挑战和潜在的研究方向，这些挑战和研究方向被分散。因此，本研究为Xai组织的挑战和未来的研究方向提出了系统的挑战和未来研究方向：（1）基于机器学习生命周期的Xai挑战和研究方向，基于机器的挑战和研究方向阶段：设计，开发和部署。我们认为，我们的META调查通过为XAI地区的未来探索指导提供了XAI文学。

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda capturing complex computational legal processes, and embedding them in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.

值得信赖的人工智能（AI）已成为一个重要的话题，因为在AI系统及其创造者中的信任已经丢失。研究人员，公司和政府具有远离技术开发，部署和监督的边缘化群体的长期和痛苦的历史。结果，这些技术对小群体的有用甚至有害。我们争辩说，渴望信任的任何AI开发，部署和监测框架必须纳入女权主义，非剥削参与性设计原则和强大，外部和持续监测和测试。我们还向考虑到透明度，公平性和问责制的可靠性方面的重要性，特别是考虑对任何值得信赖的AI系统的核心价值观的正义和转移权力。创建值得信赖的AI通过资金，支持和赋予Grassroots组织，如AI Queer等基层组织开始，因此AI领域具有多样性和纳入可信和有效地发展的可信赖AI。我们利用AI的专家知识Queer通过其多年的工作和宣传来讨论以及如何以及如何在数据集和AI系统中使用如何以及如何在数据集和AI系统中使用以及沿着这些线路的危害。基于此，我们分享了对AI的性别方法，进一步提出了Queer认识论并分析它可以带来AI的好处。我们还讨论了如何在愿景中讨论如何使用此Queer认识论，提出与AI和性别多样性和隐私和酷儿数据保护相关的框架。

拟议的欧洲人工智能法案（AIA）是第一次尝试详细阐述由任何主要全球经济开展的AI一般法律框架。因此，AIA可能成为如何调节AI系统（应当）的更大话语中的参考点。在本文中，我们描述并讨论了AIA中提出的两项初级执法机制：高风险AI系统的提供者预计会进行的符合性评估，以及提供者必须建立履行表现的市场后监测计划在整个寿命中的高风险AI系统。我们认为，AIA可以被解释为建立欧洲审计的欧洲生态系统的建议，尽管换句话说。我们的分析提供了两个主要贡献。首先，通过描述从现有文献借入的AI审计中借用的AIA中包含的执法机制，我们帮助AI系统的提供者了解它们如何证明在实践中遵守AIA所示的要求。其次，通过从审计视角审查AIA，我们寻求提供以前研究如何进一步改进AIA中概述的监管方法的可转让教训。我们通过突出AIA的七个方面来结束修正案（或简单澄清）会有所帮助。最重要的是，需要将模糊概念转化为可验证标准，并加强基于内部支票的符合性评估的体制保障措施。

如果未来的AI系统在新的情况下是可靠的安全性，那么他们将需要纳入指导它们的一般原则，以便强烈地认识到哪些结果和行为将是有害的。这样的原则可能需要得到约束力的监管制度的支持，该法规需要广泛接受的基本原则。它们还应该足够具体用于技术实施。本文从法律中汲取灵感，解释了负面的人权如何履行此类原则的作用，并为国际监管制度以及为未来的AI系统建立技术安全限制的基础。

为了调节机器学习驱动的系统（ML）系统，当前的审核过程主要集中于检测有害算法偏见。尽管这些策略已被证明具有影响力，但在审计过程中涉及ML驱动系统中伦理的文档中概述的一些价值仍然不足。这种未解决的值主要处理无法轻易量化的上下文因素。在本文中，我们开发了一个基于价值的评估框架，该框架不限于偏见审计，并涵盖了算法系统的重要道德原则。我们的框架提出了值的圆形布置，并具有两个双极尺寸，这些二极管尺寸使共同的动机和潜在的紧张局势明确。为了实现这些高级原则，然后将价值分解为特定的标准及其表现形式。但是，其中一些特定于价值的标准是相互排斥的，需要协商。与仅依靠ML研究人员和从业者的意见的其他一些其他审计框架相反，我们认为有必要包括利益相关者，这些利益相关者表现出各种观点，以系统地谈判和巩固价值和标准紧张局势。为此，我们将利益相关者绘制有不同的见解需求，并为将价值表现传达给他们的量身定制手段。因此，我们通过评估框架为当前的ML审计实践做出了贡献，该实践可视化价值之间的亲密关系和紧张局势，并给出了如何对其进行操作的准则，同时向广泛的利益相关者开放评估和审议过程。

部署的AI系统通常不起作用。它们可以随意地构造，不加选择地部署并欺骗性地促进。然而，尽管有这一现实，但学者，新闻界和决策者对功能的关注很少。这导致技术和政策解决方案的重点是“道德”或价值一致的部署，通常会跳过先前的问题，即给定系统功能或完全提供任何好处。描述各种功能失败的危害，我们分析一组案例研究，以创建已知的AI功能问题的分类法。然后，我们指出的是政策和组织响应，这些策略和组织响应经常被忽略，并在功能成为重点后变得更容易获得。我们认为功能是一项有意义的AI政策挑战，是保护受影响社区免受算法伤害的必要第一步。

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

随着全球人口越来越多的人口驱动世界各地的快速城市化，有很大的需要蓄意审议值得生活的未来。特别是，随着现代智能城市拥抱越来越多的数据驱动的人工智能服务，值得记住技术可以促进繁荣，福祉，城市居住能力或社会正义，而是只有当它具有正确的模拟补充时（例如竭尽全力，成熟机构，负责任治理）;这些智能城市的最终目标是促进和提高人类福利和社会繁荣。研究人员表明，各种技术商业模式和特征实际上可以有助于极端主义，极化，错误信息和互联网成瘾等社会问题。鉴于这些观察，解决了确保了诸如未来城市技术基岩的安全，安全和可解释性的哲学和道德问题，以为未来城市的技术基岩具有至关重要的。在全球范围内，有能够更加人性化和以人为本的技术。在本文中，我们分析和探索了在人以人为本的应用中成功部署AI的安全，鲁棒性，可解释性和道德（数据和算法）挑战的关键挑战，特别强调这些概念/挑战的融合。我们对这些关键挑战提供了对现有文献的详细审查，并分析了这些挑战中的一个可能导致他人的挑战方式或帮助解决其他挑战。本文还建议了这些域的当前限制，陷阱和未来研究方向，以及如何填补当前的空白并导致更好的解决方案。我们认为，这种严谨的分析将为域名的未来研究提供基准。

随着各种公开的AI伦理原则的共识，差距仍然可以随时采用设计和开发负责任的AI系统。我们研究了来自澳大利亚国家科学研究机构（CSIRO）的研究人员和工程师的实践和经验，他们参与设计和开发AI系统的一系列目的。半结构化访谈用于检查参与者的做法如何与澳大利亚政府提出的一套高级AI伦理原则涉及并对齐。原则包括：隐私保护和安全，可靠性和安全性，透明度和解释性，公平性，竞争性，责任，人以人为本的价值观和人类，社会与环境福祉。研究了研究人员和工程师的见解以及在原则的实际应用中为它们提供的挑战。最后，提供了一系列组织响应，以支持实施高级AI道德原则。

可解释的人工智能和可解释的机器学习是重要性越来越重要的研究领域。然而，潜在的概念仍然难以捉摸，并且缺乏普遍商定的定义。虽然社会科学最近的灵感已经重新分为人类受助人的需求和期望的工作，但该领域仍然错过了具体的概念化。通过审查人类解释性的哲学和社会基础，我们采取措施来解决这一挑战，然后我们转化为技术领域。特别是，我们仔细审查了算法黑匣子的概念，并通过解释过程确定的理解频谱并扩展了背景知识。这种方法允许我们将可解释性（逻辑）推理定义为在某些背景知识下解释的透明洞察（进入黑匣子）的解释 - 这是一个从事在Admoleis中理解的过程。然后，我们采用这种概念化来重新审视透明度和预测权力之间的争议权差异，以及对安特 - 人穴和后宫后解释者的影响，以及可解释性发挥的公平和问责制。我们还讨论机器学习工作流程的组件，可能需要可解释性，从以人为本的可解释性建立一系列思想，重点介绍声明，对比陈述和解释过程。我们的讨论调整并补充目前的研究，以帮助更好地导航开放问题 - 而不是试图解决任何个人问题 - 从而为实现的地面讨论和解释的人工智能和可解释的机器学习的未来进展奠定了坚实的基础。我们结束了我们的研究结果，重新审视了实现所需的算法透明度水平所需的人以人为本的解释过程。

自动决策算法正在越来越多地做出或协助影响人类生活的决策。这些算法中有许多处理个人数据，以预测累犯，信用风险分析，使用面部识别识别个人等等。尽管有可能提高效率和有效性，但这种算法并非固有地摆脱偏见，不透明，缺乏解释性，恶意性等。鉴于这些算法的结果对个人和社会产生了重大影响，并且在部署后开放分析和竞争，因此必须在部署前考虑此类问题。正式审核是确保算法符合适当的问责制标准的一种方式。这项工作基于对文献和专家焦点小组研究的广泛分析，为系统问责制定基于人工智能决策系统的正式审核的系统问责制定了一个统一的框架。这项工作还建议系统卡作为记分卡，展示此类审核的结果。它由56个标准组成，该标准由四乘四分之四的矩阵组织，该矩阵由重点介绍（i）数据，（ii）模型，（iii）代码，（iv）系统的行组成，以及重点介绍（a）的列，（b ）评估，（c）缓解和（d）保证。拟议的系统问责制基准反映了负责系统的最新开发，可作为算法审核的清单，并为未来研究的顺序工作铺平了道路。

Recommender systems can strongly influence which information we see online, e.g., on social media, and thus impact our beliefs, decisions, and actions. At the same time, these systems can create substantial business value for different stakeholders. Given the growing potential impact of such AI-based systems on individuals, organizations, and society, questions of fairness have gained increased attention in recent years. However, research on fairness in recommender systems is still a developing area. In this survey, we first review the fundamental concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. Afterward, through a review of more than 150 scholarly publications, we present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized, e.g., in terms of general research methodology, fairness measures, and algorithmic approaches. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to specific research gaps. In particular, we find that in many research works in computer science, very abstract problem operationalizations are prevalent, and questions of the underlying normative claims and what represents a fair recommendation in the context of a given application are often not discussed in depth. These observations call for more interdisciplinary research to address fairness in recommendation in a more comprehensive and impactful manner.