Artificial Intelligence: Reclaiming Control

Embodiment Factors

Heider and Simmel (1944)

Human Communication

Evolved Relationship with Information

New Flow of Information

Evolved Relationship

Evolved Relationship

\[\text{reflect} \Longleftrightarrow \text{reflex}\]

Accelerate Program: Empower the User

AutoAI: Resolve Intellectual Debt

Data Trusts: Empower People through their Data

{

Personal Data Trusts

Motivation

1. Indsidious decision-making that has downstream instrumental effects we don’t control.
2. A power-asymmetry between data-controllers and data-subjects
3. A loss of personhood in the re-representation of ourselves in the digital world.
4. The GDPR’s endeavour to curb contractual freedom cannot by itself reverse the power-asymmetry between data-controllers and data-subjects.

Analogy

• Digital Democracy vs Digital Oligarchy Lawrence (2015a) or Information Feudalism Lawrence (2015b)
• Data subjects, data controllers and data processors.

Legal Mechanism of Trusts

• Fiduciary responsibility of Trustees.
  • Burden of proof in negligence is reversed.
• Trustees are data controllers
• Beneficiaries are data subjects
• Power of data accumulation wielded on the beneficiaries behalf
• See Edwards (2004), Delacroix and Lawrence (2019) and Lawrence (2016)

Data Trusts Initiative

AI@Cam

Conclusions

• Humans view intelligence as embodied, but AI is not embodied.
• Critical decisions are dependent on human nuance to reconcile the tension between \(p\)-Fairness and \(n\)-Fairness.
• This implies that AI should only ever be seen as a tool of humans.
• Much of current technology makes us a tool of the AI.

Conclusions Contd

• Three interventions to address this.
  • Empower the humans to better use the tools.
  • Develop better standards for creating AI systems.
  • Develop data intermediaries to allow citizens to have a voice in how their data is used.