REVIEW 2 cited by
A Trust Framework for Government Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision Making
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
A Trust Framework for Government Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision Making
read the original abstract
This paper identifies the current challenges of the mechanisation, digitisation and automation of public sector systems and processes, and proposes a modern and practical framework to ensure and assure ethical and high veracity Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Automated Decision Making (ADM) systems in public institutions. This framework is designed for the specific context of the public sector, in the jurisdictional and constitutional context of Australia, but is extendable to other jurisdictions and private sectors. The goals of the framework are to: 1) earn public trust and grow public confidence in government systems; 2) to ensure the unique responsibilities and accountabilities (including to the public) of public institutions under Administrative Law are met effectively; and 3) to assure a positive human, societal and ethical impact from the adoption of such systems. The framework could be extended to assure positive environmental or other impacts, but this paper focuses on human/societal outcomes and public trust. This paper is meant to complement principles-based frameworks like Australia's Artificial Intelligence Ethics Framework and the EU Assessment List for Trustworthy AI. In many countries, COVID created a bubble of improved trust, a bubble which has arguably already popped, and in an era of unprecedented mistrust of public institutions (but even in times of high trust) it is not enough that a service is faster, or more cost-effective. This paper proposes recommendations for government systems (technology platforms, operations, culture, governance, engagement, etc.) that would help to improve public confidence and trust in public institutions, policies and services, whilst meeting the special obligations and responsibilities of the public sector.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Creation and Analysis of Government AI Transparency Statements in Australia
Australian government AI transparency statements are short, hard to read, unevenly complete, and optimised for organisational risk signalling rather than technical public understanding.
-
The Creation and Analysis of Government AI Transparency Statements in Australia
The authors introduce the AITS-101 dataset and find substantial variation in how Australian government bodies disclose AI use, revealing gaps between transparency policy and actual implementation.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.