Artificial intelligence and policy: quo vadis?

摘要

Purpose - This paper aims to inform policymakers about key artificial intelligence (Al) technologies, risks and trends in national Al strategies. It suggests a framework of social governance to ensure emergence of safe and beneficial Al. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is based on approximately 100 interviews with researchers, executives of traditional companies and startups and policymakers in seven countries. The interviews were carried out in January-August 2017. Findings - Policymakers still need to develop an informed, scientifically grounded and forward-looking view on what societies and businesses might expect from Al. There is lack of transparency on what key Al risks are and what might be regulatory approaches to handle them. There is no collaborative framework in place involving ail important actors to decide on Al technology design principles and governance. Today's technology decisions will have long-term consequences on lives of billions of people and competitiveness of millions of businesses. Research limitations/implications - The research did not include a lot of insights from the emerging markets. Practical implications - Policymakers will understand the scope of most important Al concepts, risks and national strategies. Social implications - Al is progressing at a very fast rate, changing industries, businesses and approaches how companies learn, generate business insights, design products and communicate with their employees and customers. It has a big societal impact, as - if not designed with care - it can scale human bias, increase cybersecurity risk and lead to negative shifts in employment. Like no other invention, it can tighten control by the few over the many, spread false information and propaganda and therewith shape the perception of people, communities and enterprises. Originality/value - This paper is a compendium on the most important concepts of Al, bringing clarity into discussions around Al risks and the ways to mitigate them. The breadth of topics is valuable to policymakers, students, practitioners, general executives and board directors alike.