The need for AI systems to provide explanations for their behaviour is now widely recognised as key to their adoption. In this paper, we examine the problem of trustworthy AI and explore what delivering this means in practice, with a focus on healthcare applications. Work in this area typically treats trustworthy AI as a problem of Human-Computer Interaction involving the individual user and an AI system. However, we argue here that this overlooks the important part played by organisational accountability in how people reason about and trust AI in socio-technical settings. To illustrate the importance of organisational accountability, we present findings from ethnographic studies of breast cancer screening and cancer treatment planning in multidisciplinary team meetings to show how participants made themselves accountable both to each other and to the organisations of which they are members. We use these findings to enrich existing understandings of the requirements for trustworthy AI and to outline some candidate solutions to the problems of making AI accountable both to individual users and organisationally. We conclude by outlining the implications of this for future work on the development of trustworthy AI, including ways in which our proposed solutions may be re-used in different application settings.

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.

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).

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。

Xenophobia is one of the key drivers of marginalisation, discrimination, and conflict, yet many prominent machine learning (ML) fairness frameworks fail to comprehensively measure or mitigate the resulting xenophobic harms. Here we aim to bridge this conceptual gap and help facilitate safe and ethical design of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions. We ground our analysis of the impact of xenophobia by first identifying distinct types of xenophobic harms, and then applying this framework across a number of prominent AI application domains, reviewing the potential interplay between AI and xenophobia on social media and recommendation systems, healthcare, immigration, employment, as well as biases in large pre-trained models. These help inform our recommendations towards an inclusive, xenophilic design of future AI systems.

本章讨论了数据组织自动化过程的棱镜的AI，并举例说明了解释性能够在从当前的AI系统中移动到下一个系统的作用，其中人类的作用被从中抬起数据注释器为使用AI系统工作的AI系统。

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。

在数字治疗干预的背景下，例如互联网交付的认知行为治疗（ICBT）用于治疗抑郁和焦虑，广泛的研究表明，人类支持者或教练的参与如何协助接受治疗的人，改善用户参与治疗并导致更有效的健康结果而不是不受支持的干预措施。该研究旨在最大限度地提高这一人类支持的影响和结果，研究了通过AI和机器学习领域（ML）领域的最新进展提供的新机遇如何有助于有效地支持ICBT支持者的工作实践。本文报告了采访研究的详细调查结果，与15个ICBT支持者加深了解其现有的工作实践和信息需求，旨在有意义地向抑郁和焦虑治疗的背景下提供有用，可实现的ML申请。分析贡献（1）一组六个主题，总结了ICBT支持者在为其精神卫生客户提供有效，个性化反馈方面的策略和挑战;并回应这些学习，（2）对于ML方法如何帮助支持和解决挑战和信息需求，为每个主题提供具体机会。它依赖于在支持者LED客户审查实践中引入新的机器生成的数据见解的潜在社会，情感和务实含义的思考。

汽车行业在过去几十年中见证了越来越多的发展程度;从制造手动操作车辆到具有高自动化水平的制造车辆。随着近期人工智能（AI）的发展，汽车公司现在雇用BlackBox AI模型来使车辆能够感知其环境，并使人类少或没有输入的驾驶决策。希望能够在商业规模上部署自治车辆（AV），通过社会接受AV成为至关重要的，并且可能在很大程度上取决于其透明度，可信度和遵守法规的程度。通过为AVS行为的解释提供对这些接受要求的遵守对这些验收要求的评估。因此，解释性被视为AVS的重要要求。 AV应该能够解释他们在他们运作的环境中的“见到”。在本文中，我们对可解释的自动驾驶的现有工作体系进行了全面的调查。首先，我们通过突出显示并强调透明度，问责制和信任的重要性来开放一个解释的动机;并审查与AVS相关的现有法规和标准。其次，我们识别并分类了参与发展，使用和监管的不同利益相关者，并引出了AV的解释要求。第三，我们对以前的工作进行了严格的审查，以解释不同的AV操作（即，感知，本地化，规划，控制和系统管理）。最后，我们确定了相关的挑战并提供建议，例如AV可解释性的概念框架。该调查旨在提供对AVS中解释性感兴趣的研究人员所需的基本知识。

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。

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。

保证案件提出了一个明确且可辩护的论点，并得到证据支持，即系统将按照特定情况下的意图运行。通常，保证案例提出了一个论点，即系统在其预期的上下文中将是安全的。值得信赖的AI研究社区中的一项新兴建议是扩展和应用这种方法，以保证使用AI系统或自治系统（AI/AS）在特定情况下将是可接受的道德。在本文中，我们进一步提出了这一建议。我们通过为AI/AS提供基于原则的道德保证（PBEA）论点模式来做到这一点。 PBEA参数模式为推理给定AI/AS的整体道德可接受性提供了一个框架，它可能是特定道德保证案例的早期原型模板。构成PBEA论证模式基础的四个核心道德原则是：正义；福利；非遗憾；并尊重个人自主权。在整个过程中，我们将参数模式的阶段连接到AI/作为应用程序的示例。这有助于显示其最初的合理性。

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。

To address the widespread problem of uncivil behavior, many online discussion platforms employ human moderators to take action against objectionable content, such as removing it or placing sanctions on its authors. This reactive paradigm of taking action against already-posted antisocial content is currently the most common form of moderation, and has accordingly underpinned many recent efforts at introducing automation into the moderation process. Comparatively less work has been done to understand other moderation paradigms -- such as proactively discouraging the emergence of antisocial behavior rather than reacting to it -- and the role algorithmic support can play in these paradigms. In this work, we investigate such a proactive framework for moderation in a case study of a collaborative setting: Wikipedia Talk Pages. We employ a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and design components for a holistic analysis. Through interviews with moderators, we find that despite a lack of technical and social support, moderators already engage in a number of proactive moderation behaviors, such as preemptively intervening in conversations to keep them on track. Further, we explore how automation could assist with this existing proactive moderation workflow by building a prototype tool, presenting it to moderators, and examining how the assistance it provides might fit into their workflow. The resulting feedback uncovers both strengths and drawbacks of the prototype tool and suggests concrete steps towards further developing such assisting technology so it can most effectively support moderators in their existing proactive moderation workflow.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is transforming the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by enhancing the trust of end-users in machines. As the number of connected devices keeps on growing, the Internet of Things (IoT) market needs to be trustworthy for the end-users. However, existing literature still lacks a systematic and comprehensive survey work on the use of XAI for IoT. To bridge this lacking, in this paper, we address the XAI frameworks with a focus on their characteristics and support for IoT. We illustrate the widely-used XAI services for IoT applications, such as security enhancement, Internet of Medical Things (IoMT), Industrial IoT (IIoT), and Internet of City Things (IoCT). We also suggest the implementation choice of XAI models over IoT systems in these applications with appropriate examples and summarize the key inferences for future works. Moreover, we present the cutting-edge development in edge XAI structures and the support of sixth-generation (6G) communication services for IoT applications, along with key inferences. In a nutshell, this paper constitutes the first holistic compilation on the development of XAI-based frameworks tailored for the demands of future IoT use cases.

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。

期望与成功采用AI来创新和改善业务之间仍然存在很大的差距。由于深度学习的出现，AI的采用率更为复杂，因为它经常结合大数据和物联网，从而影响数据隐私。现有的框架已经确定需要专注于以人为中心的设计，结合技术和业务/组织的观点。但是，信任仍然是一个关键问题，需要从一开始就设计。拟议的框架从以人为本的设计方法扩展，强调和维持基于该过程的信任。本文提出了负责人工智能（AI）实施的理论框架。拟议的框架强调了敏捷共同创造过程的协同业务技术方法。目的是简化AI的采用过程来通过在整个项目中参与所有利益相关者来创新和改善业务，以便AI技术的设计，开发和部署与人合作而不是孤立。该框架对基于分析文献综述，概念框架设计和从业者的中介专业知识的负责人AI实施提出了新的观点。该框架强调在以人为以人为中心的设计和敏捷发展中建立和维持信任。这种以人为中心的方式与设计原则的隐私相符和启用。该技术和最终用户的创建者正在共同努力，为业务需求和人类特征定制AI解决方案。关于采用AI来协助医院计划的说明性案例研究将证明该拟议框架适用于现实生活中的应用。

残疾人在医疗保健，就业和政府政策等各个领域的各种复杂的决策过程中受到各种复杂的决策。这些环境通常已经不透明他们影响的人并缺乏充分的残疾观点代表，它迅速采用人工智能（AI）技术来用于数据分析以告知决策，从而增加因不当或不公平的算法而造成的伤害风险增加。本文介绍了一个通过残疾镜头进行严格检查AI数据分析技术的框架，并研究了AI技术设计师选择的残疾定义如何影响其对残疾分析对象的影响。我们考虑了三种残疾的概念模型：医学模型，社会模型和关系模型；并展示在每个模型下设计的AI技术如何差异很大，以至于与彼此不相容和矛盾。通过讨论有关医疗保健和政府残疾福利中AI分析的常见用例，我们说明了技术设计过程中的特定考虑因素和决策点，这些因素和决策点影响了这些环境中的电力动态和包容性，并有助于确定其对边缘化或支持的方向。我们提出的框架可以作为对AI技术的深入批判性检查的基础，并开发用于残疾相关的AI分析的设计实践。

作为人工智能（AI）的技术子领域，可解释的AI（XAI）已经产生了广泛的算法集合，为研究人员和从业者提供了一个工具箱，用于构建XAI应用程序。凭借丰富的应用机会，解释性已经超越了数据科学家或研究人员的需求，以了解他们发展的模型，成为人们信任的重要要求，并采用部署在众多域中的AI。然而，解释性是一种本质上以人为本的财产，该领域开始接受以人为本的方法。人机互动（HCI）研究和用户体验（UX）设计在该地区的设计越来越重要。在本章中，我们从Xai算法技术景观的高级概述开始，然后选择性地调查我们自己和其他最近的HCI工作，以便以人为本的设计，评估，为Xai提供概念和方法工具。我们询问问题``以人为本的方式为Xai'做了什么，并突出了三个角色，通过帮助导航，评估和扩展Xai工具箱来塑造XAI技术的三个角色：通过用户解释性需要推动技术选择揭示现有XAI方法的缺陷，并通知新方法，为人类兼容的XAI提供概念框架。

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