WESTMINSTER’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for a new AI Bill to address the scale and seriousness of threats posed to human rights by artificial intelligence systems.
In a report published today, the Committee sets out a range of human rights risks that the existing regulatory and legal framework are ill-equipped to prevent or respond to. It calls for a new regime of safeguards that can address the complexity of AI supply chains and speed at which new systems develop.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Alex Sobel MP said: “AI is heralded as an unprecedented era of technological development with the potential to transform our lives for better or for worse.
“It is moving with such speed and complexity that its impact is hard to accurately predict. What is clear is that at present we are unprepared to deal with its consequences however potentially dire they may be.
“Nowhere in the world, including the UK, has a current legislative and regulatory approach to AI that is fit for purpose. New legislation is needed to establish a comprehensive set of protections that deal with the entire AI supply chain and its lifecycle. A single AI regulator should be established to set policy, monitor performance and with the teeth to ensure enforcement.
“We also recognise that AI has the potential to provide great benefits to society, including improving how human rights are protected. That is why it will be important to ensure that regulation is proportionate and targets the areas of AI development and usage that pose the greatest risks.
“Fundamentally, this is about making sure that you, as an individual, know when AI is being used in the decisions that affect you. We also want to make sure that if something does go wrong then avenues of redress will be available. We need these protections in now, it cannot wait until fear human rights risks become reality.”
Existing laws and regulation
UK laws that could apply to AI do so primarily at the point of deployment, leaving the responsibility on its users rather than its designers. Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are released or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks. Model developers engage with the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis and it has no statutory power.
The current legal framework that applies to AI is fragmented and difficult to navigate. It relies on harm-specific and sector-specific legislation leaving gaps in protection which fails to address preventable human rights risks.
The right of an individual to seek effective remedy against decisions made against them is endangered by the use of AI. Insufficient transparency concerning how AI systems are used in decision making and a lack of effective mechanisms to challenge those decisions threatens the rights of people in the UK.
The risks of AI harms are particularly acute for already minoritised communities, including Black and Minority Ethnic people. As well, the right to privacy is under serious threat.
To address the global nature of AI harms, governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards. The UK should continue to play a leading role in international AI summits and seek to be party to international declarations and agreements on AI safety.
New AI Bill
A new Bill should take a risk-based approach to addressing AI harms. Low risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements. Legislation should not place unjustified burdens on businesses, to enable UK companies to innovate and take advantage of the benefits AI can offer.
The AI Bill should establish a regulatory regime that classifies different risk levels and mandate more demanding obligations for higher risk AI systems and models. Obligations should be placed on all stages of the AI lifecycle, ensuring those responsible in the supply chain for designing, amending and utilising AI systems are aware of their obligations and they are effectively addressed.
Some uses of AI should be prohibited outright because they are incompatible with human rights. Potential areas for action include subliminal techniques, and inappropriate use of profiling or biometric data.
There should be a public consultation over the detail of what is prohibited. Other AI systems posing a high risk of causing human rights harms should require prior approval.
Legislation should place requirements on actors at all stages of the supply chain to undertake due diligence necessary to prevent an unacceptable risk to human rights when designing, developing or deploying AI systems. The requirements should be graded based on their role in the supply chain and the gravity of the risk posed.
Mandatory transparency requirements should be in force across the AI lifecycle. AI systems that can have significant impacts on individuals, groups and communities should include an obligation to state when AI systems are being used and how.
Data protection law provides specific safeguards for when automated decision making is used. The needs to be greater clarity in the law to ensure these safeguards operate effectively in practice. UK GDPR rules should be strengthened to ensure there are robust protections against the mis-use of automated decision making.
The mere presence of a ‘human in the loop’ is not sufficient to constitute meaningful human involvement or intervention.
Urgent action is needed to close gaps in the regulatory framework which is currently fragmented and difficult to navigate. A single, independent AI oversight body should be established on a statutory basis.
The body would act as the central point of contact for raising concerns about the use of AI and carry out oversight and monitoring of AI harms and risks. It should have strong powers to hold AI providers to account including setting codes of practice, transparency requirements and the power to sanction wrongdoing.
