Creating (positive) friction in AI procurement

I had the opportunity to participate in the Inaugural AI Commercial Lifecycle and Procurement Summit 2024 hosted by Curshaw. This was a very interesting ‘unconference’ where participants offered to lead sessions on topics they wanted to talk about. I led a session on ‘Creating friction in AI procurement’.

This was clearly a counterintuitive way of thinking about AI and procurement, given that the ‘big promise’ of AI is that it will reduce friction (eg through automation, and/or delegation of ‘non-value-added’ tasks). Why would I want to create friction in this context?

The first clarification I was thus asked for was whether this was about ‘good friction’ (as opposed to old bad ‘red tape’ kind of friction), which of course it was (?!), and the second, what do I mean by friction.

My recent research on AI procurement (eg here and here for the book-long treatment) has led me to conclude that we need to slow down the process of public sector AI adoption and to create mechanisms that bring back to the table the ‘non-AI’ option and several ‘stop project’ or ‘deal breaker’ trumps to push back against the tidal wave of unavoidability that seems to dominate all discussions on public sector digitalisation. My preferred solution is to do so through a system of permissioning or licencing administered by an independent authority—but I am aware and willing to concede that there is no political will for it. I thus started thinking about second-best approaches to slowing public sector AI procurement. This is how I got to the idea of friction.

By creating friction, I mean the need for a structured decision-making process that allows for collective deliberation within and around the adopting institution, and which is supported by rigorous impact assessments that tease out second and third order implications from AI adoption, as well as thoroughly interrogating first order issues around data quality and governance, technological governance and organisational capability, in particular around risk management and mitigation. This is complementary—but hopefully goes beyond—emerging frameworks to determine organisational ‘risk appetite’ for AI procurement, such as that developed by the AI Procurement Lab and the Centre for Inclusive Change.

The conversations the focus on ‘good friction’ moved in different directions, but there are some takeaways and ideas that stuck with me (or I managed to jot down in my notes while chatting to others), such as (in no particular order of importance or potential):

  • the potential for ‘AI minimisation’ or ‘non-AI equivalence’ to test the need for (specific) AI solutions—if you can sufficiently approximate, or replicate, the same functional outcome without AI, or with a simpler type of AI, why not do it that way?;

  • the need for a structured catalogue of solutions (and components of solutions) that are already available (sometimes in open access, where there is lots of duplication) to inform such considerations;

  • the importance of asking whether procuring AI is driven by considerations such as availability of funding (is this funded if done with AI but not funded, or hard to fund at the same level, if done in other ways?), which can clearly skew decision-making—the importance of considering the effects of ‘digital industrial policy’ on decision-making;

  • the power (and relevance) of the deceptively simple question ‘is there an interdisciplinary team to be dedicated to this, and exclusively to this’?;

  • the importance of knowledge and understanding of the tech and its implications from the beginning, and of expertise in the translation of technical and governance requirements into procurement requirements, to avoid ‘games of chance’ whereby the use of ‘trendy terms’ (such as ‘agile’ or ‘responsible’) may or may not lead to the award of the contract to the best-placed and best-fitting (tech) provider;

  • the possibility to adapt civic monitoring or social witnessing mechanisms used in other contexts, such as large infrastructure projects, to be embedded in contract performance and auditing phases;

  • the importance of understanding displacement effects and whether deploying a solution (AI or automation, or similar) to deal with a bottleneck will simply displace the issue to another (new) bottleneck somewhere along the process;

  • the importance of understanding the broader organisational changes required to capture the hoped for (productivity) gains arising from the tech deployment;

  • the importance of carefully considering and resourcing the much needed engagement of the ‘intelligent person’ that needs to check the design and outputs of the AI, including frontline workers and those at the receiving end of the relevant decisions or processes and the affected communities—the importance of creating meaningful and effective deliberative engagement mechanisms;

  • relatedly, the need to ensure organisational engagement and alignment at every level and every step of the AI (pre)procurement process (on which I would recommend reading this recent piece by Kawakami and colleagues);

  • the need to assess the impacts of changes in scale, complexity, and error exposure;

  • the need to create adequate circuit-breakers throughout the process.

Certainly lots to reflect on and try to embed in future research and outreach efforts. Thanks to all those who participated in the conversation, and to those interested in joining it. A structured way to do so is through this LinkedIn group.

Meaning, AI, and procurement -- some thoughts

©Ausrine Kuze, Distorted Reality, 2021.

James McKinney and Volodymyr Tarnay of the Open Contracting Partnership have published ‘A gentle introduction to applying AI in procurement’. It is a very accessible and helpful primer on some of the most salient issues to be considered when exploring the possibility of using AI to extract insights from procurement big data.

The OCP introduction to AI in procurement provides helpful pointers in relation to task identification, method, input, and model selection. I would add that an initial exploration of the possibility to deploy AI also (and perhaps first and foremost) requires careful consideration of the level of precision and the type (and size) of errors that can be tolerated in the specific task, and ways to test and measure it.

One of the crucial and perhaps more difficult to understand issues covered by the introduction is how AI seeks to capture ‘meaning’ in order to extract insights from big data. This is also a controversial issue that keeps coming up in procurement data analysis contexts, and one that triggered some heated debate at the Public Procurement Data Superpowers Conference last week—where, in my view, companies selling procurement insight services were peddling hyped claims (see session on ‘Transparency in public procurement - Data readability’).

In this post, I venture some thoughts on meaning, AI, and public procurement big data. As always, I am very interested in feedback and opportunities for further discussion.

Meaning

Of course, the concept of meaning is complex and open to philosophical, linguistic, and other interpretations. Here I take a relatively pedestrian and pragmatic approach and, following the Cambridge dictionary, consider two ways in which ‘meaning’ is understood in plain English: ‘the meaning of something is what it expresses or represents’, and meaning as ‘importance or value’.

To put it simply, I will argue that AI cannot capture meaning proper. It can carry complex analysis of ‘content in context’, but we should not equate that with meaning. This will be important later on.

AI, meaning, embeddings, and ‘content in context’

The OCP introduction helpfully addresses this issue in relation to an example of ‘sentence similarity’, where the researchers are looking for phrases that are alike in tender notices and predefined green criteria, and therefore want to use AI to compare sentences and assign them a similarity score. Intuitively, ‘meaning’ would be important to the comparison.

The OCP introduction explains that:

Computers don’t understand human language. They need to operate on numbers. We can represent text and other information as numerical values with vector embeddings. A vector is a list of numbers that, in the context of AI, helps us express the meaning of information and its relationship to other information.

Text can be converted into vectors using a model. [A sentence transformer model] converts a sentence into a vector of 384 numbers. For example, the sentence “don’t panic and always carry a towel” becomes the numbers 0.425…, 0.385…, 0.072…, and so on.

These numbers represent the meaning of the sentence.

Let’s compare this sentence to another: “keep calm and never forget your towel” which has the vector (0.434…, 0.264…, 0.123…, …).

One way to determine their similarity score is to use cosine similarity to calculate the distance between the vectors of the two sentences. Put simply, the closer the vectors are, the more alike the sentences are. The result of this calculation will always be a number from -1 (the sentences have opposite meanings) to 1 (same meaning). You could also calculate this using other trigonometric measures such as Euclidean distance.

For our two sentences above, performing this mathematical operation returns a similarity score of 0.869.

Now let’s consider the sentence “do you like cheese?” which has the vector (-0.167…, -0.557…, 0.066…, …). It returns a similarity score of 0.199. Hooray! The computer is correct!

But, this method is not fool-proof. Let’s try another: “do panic and never bring a towel” (0.589…, 0.255…, 0.0884…, …). The similarity score is 0.857. The score is high, because the words are similar… but the logic is opposite!

I think there are two important observations in relation to the use of meaning here (highlighted above).

First, meaning can hardly be captured where sentences with opposite logic are considered very similar. This is because the method described above (vector embedding) does not capture meaning. It captures content (words) in context (around other words).

Second, it is not possible to fully express in numbers what text expresses or represents, or its importance or value. What the vectors capture is the representation or expression of such meaning, the representation of its value and importance through the use of those specific words in the particular order in which they are expresssed. The string of numbers is thus a second-degree representation of the meaning intended by the words; it is a numerical representation of the word representation, not a numerical representation of the meaning.

Unavoidably, there is plenty scope for loss, alteration or even inversion of meaning when it goes through multiple imperfect processes of representation. This means that the more open textured the expression in words and the less contextualised in its presentation, the more difficult it is to achieve good results.

It is important to bear in mind that the current techniques based on this or similar methods, such as those based on large language models, clearly fail on crucial aspects such as their factuality—which ultimately requires checking whether something with a given meaning is true or false.

This is a burgeoning area of technnical research but it seems that even the most accurate models tend to hover around 70% accuracy, save in highly contextual non-ambiguous contexts (see eg D Quelle and A Bovet, ‘The perils and promises of fact-checking with large language models’ (2024) 7 Front. Artif. Intell., Sec. Natural Language Processing). While this is an impressive feature of these tools, it can hardly be acceptable to extrapolate that these tools can be deployed for tasks that require precision and factuality.

Procurement big data and ‘content and context’

In some senses, the application of AI to extract insights from procurement big data is well suited to the fact that, by and large, existing procurement data is very precisely contextualised and increasingly concerns structured content—that is, that most of the procurement data that is (increasingly) available is captured in structured notices and tends to have a narrowly defined and highly contextual purpose.

From that perspective, there is potential to look for implementations of advanced comparisons of ‘content in context’. But this will most likely have a hard boundary where ‘meaning’ needs to be interpreted or analysed, as AI cannot perform that task. At most, it can help gather the information, but it cannot analyse it because it cannot ‘understand’ it.

Policy implications

In my view, the above shows that the possibility of using AI to extract insights from procurement big data needs to be approched with caution. For tasks where a ‘broad brush’ approach will do, these can be helpful tools. They can help mitigate the informational deficit procurement policy and practice tend to encounter. As put in the conference last week, these tools can help get a sense of broad trends or directions, and can thus inform policy and decision-making only in that regard and to that extent. Conversely, AI cannot be used in contexts where precision is important and where errors would affect important rights or interests.

This is important, for example, in relation to the fascination that AI ‘business insights’ seems to be triggering amongst public buyers. One of the issues that kept coming up concerns why contracting authorities cannot benefit from the same advances that are touted as being offered to (private) tenderers. The case at hand was that of identifying ‘business opportunities’.

A number of companies are using AI to support searches for contract notices to highlight potentially interesting tenders to their clients. They offer services such as ‘tender summaries’, whereby the AI creates a one-line summary on the basis of a contract notice or a tender description, and this summary can be automatically translated (eg into English). They also offer search services based on ‘capturing meaning’ from a company’s website and matching it to potentially interesting tender opportunities.

All these services, however, are at bottom a sophisticated comparison of content in context, not of meaning. And these are deployed to go from more to less information (summaries), which can reduce problems with factuality and precision except in extreme cases, and in a setting where getting it wrong has only a marginal cost (ie the company will set aside the non-interesting tender and move on). This is also an area where expectations can be managed and where results well below 100% accuracy can be interesting and have value.

The opposite does not apply from the perspective of the public buyer. For example, a summary of a tender is unlikely to have much value as, with all likelihood, the summary will simply confirm that the tender matches the advertised object of the contract (which has no value, differently from a summary suggesting a tender matches the business activities of an economic operator). Moreover, factuality is extremely important and only 100% accuracy will do in a context where decision-making is subject to good administration guarantees.

Therefore, we need to be very careful about how we think about using AI to extract insights from procurement (big) data and, as the OCP introduction highlights, one of the most important things is to clearly define the task for which AI would be used. In my view, there are much more limited tasks than one could dream up if we let our collective imagination run high on hype.

Responsibly Buying Artificial Intelligence: A ‘Regulatory Hallucination’ -- draft paper for comment

© Matt Lowe/LinkedIn.

Following yesterday’s Current Legal Problems Lecture, I have uploaded the current full draft of the paper on SSRN. I would be very grateful for any comments in the next few weeks, as I plan to do a final revision and to submit it for peer-review in early 2024. Thanks in advance for those who take the time. As always, you can reach me at a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.

The abstract of the paper is as follows:

Here, I focus on the UK’s approach to regulating public sector procurement and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the context of the broader ‘pro-innovation’ approach to AI regulation. Borrowing from the description of AI ‘hallucinations’ as plausible but incorrect answers given with high confidence by AI systems, I argue that UK policymaking is trapped in a ‘regulatory hallucination.’ Despite having embraced the plausible ‘pro-innovation’ regulatory approach with high confidence, that is the incorrect answer to the challenge of regulating AI procurement and use by the public sector. I conceptualise the current strategy as one of ‘regulation by contract’ and identify two of its underpinning presumptions that make its deployment in the digital context particularly challenging. I show how neither the presumption of superiority of the public buyer over the public contractor, nor the related presumption that the public buyer is the rule-maker and the public contractor is the rule-taker, necessarily hold in this context. Public buyer superiority is undermined by the two-sided gatekeeping required to simultaneously discipline the behaviour of the public sector AI user and the tech provider. The public buyer’s rule-making role is also undermined by its reliance on industry-led standards, as well as by the tech provider’s upper hand in setting contractual benchmarks and controlling the ensuing self-assessments. In view of the ineffectiveness of regulating public sector AI use by contract, I then sketch an alternative strategy to boost the effectiveness of the goals of AI regulation and the protection of individual rights and collective interests through the creation of an independent authority.

Sanchez-Graells, Albert, ‘Responsibly Buying Artificial Intelligence: A “Regulatory Hallucination”’ (November 24, 2023). Current Legal Problems 2023-24, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4643273.

Responsibly Buying Artificial Intelligence: A Regulatory Hallucination?

I look forward to delivering the lecture ‘Responsibly Buying Artificial Intelligence: A Regulatory Hallucination?’ as part of the Current Legal Problems Lecture Series 2023-24 organised by UCL Laws. The lecture will be this Thursday 23 November 2023 at 6pm GMT and you can still register to participate (either online or in person). These are the slides I will be using, in case you want to take a sneak peek. I will post a draft version of the paper after the lecture. Comments welcome!

Some thoughts on the US' Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI

On 30 October 2023, President Biden adopted the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (the ‘AI Executive Order’, see also its Factsheet). The use of AI by the US Federal Government is an important focus of the AI Executive Order. It will be subject to a new governance regime detailed in the Draft Policy on the use of AI in the Federal Government (the ‘Draft AI in Government Policy’, see also its Factsheet), which is open for comment until 5 December 2023. Here, I reflect on these documents from the perspective of AI procurement as a major plank of this governance reform.

Procurement in the AI Executive Order

Section 2 of the AI Executive Order formulates eight guiding principles and priorities in advancing and governing the development and use of AI. Section 2(g) refers to AI risk management, and states that

It is important to manage the risks from the Federal Government’s own use of AI and increase its internal capacity to regulate, govern, and support responsible use of AI to deliver better results for Americans. These efforts start with people, our Nation’s greatest asset. My Administration will take steps to attract, retain, and develop public service-oriented AI professionals, including from underserved communities, across disciplines — including technology, policy, managerial, procurement, regulatory, ethical, governance, and legal fields — and ease AI professionals’ path into the Federal Government to help harness and govern AI. The Federal Government will work to ensure that all members of its workforce receive adequate training to understand the benefits, risks, and limitations of AI for their job functions, and to modernize Federal Government information technology infrastructure, remove bureaucratic obstacles, and ensure that safe and rights-respecting AI is adopted, deployed, and used.

Section 10 then establishes specific measures to advance Federal Government use of AI. Section 10.1(b) details a set of governance reforms to be implemented in view of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s guidance to strengthen the effective and appropriate use of AI, advance AI innovation, and manage risks from AI in the Federal Government. Section 10.1(b) includes the following (emphases added):

The Director of OMB’s guidance shall specify, to the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(i) the requirement to designate at each agency within 60 days of the issuance of the guidance a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer who shall hold primary responsibility in their agency, in coordination with other responsible officials, for coordinating their agency’s use of AI, promoting AI innovation in their agency, managing risks from their agency’s use of AI …;

(ii) the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers’ roles, responsibilities, seniority, position, and reporting structures;

(iii) for [covered] agencies […], the creation of internal Artificial Intelligence Governance Boards, or other appropriate mechanisms, at each agency within 60 days of the issuance of the guidance to coordinate and govern AI issues through relevant senior leaders from across the agency;

(iv) required minimum risk-management practices for Government uses of AI that impact people’s rights or safety, including, where appropriate, the following practices derived from OSTP’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework: conducting public consultation; assessing data quality; assessing and mitigating disparate impacts and algorithmic discrimination; providing notice of the use of AI; continuously monitoring and evaluating deployed AI; and granting human consideration and remedies for adverse decisions made using AI;

(v) specific Federal Government uses of AI that are presumed by default to impact rights or safety;

(vi) recommendations to agencies to reduce barriers to the responsible use of AI, including barriers related to information technology infrastructure, data, workforce, budgetary restrictions, and cybersecurity processes;

(vii) requirements that [covered] agencies […] develop AI strategies and pursue high-impact AI use cases;

(viii) in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other appropriate agencies as determined by the Director of OMB, recommendations to agencies regarding:

(A) external testing for AI, including AI red-teaming for generative AI, to be developed in coordination with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency;

(B) testing and safeguards against discriminatory, misleading, inflammatory, unsafe, or deceptive outputs, as well as against producing child sexual abuse material and against producing non-consensual intimate imagery of real individuals (including intimate digital depictions of the body or body parts of an identifiable individual), for generative AI;

(C) reasonable steps to watermark or otherwise label output from generative AI;

(D) application of the mandatory minimum risk-management practices defined under subsection 10.1(b)(iv) of this section to procured AI;

(E) independent evaluation of vendors’ claims concerning both the effectiveness and risk mitigation of their AI offerings;

(F) documentation and oversight of procured AI;

(G) maximizing the value to agencies when relying on contractors to use and enrich Federal Government data for the purposes of AI development and operation;

(H) provision of incentives for the continuous improvement of procured AI; and

(I) training on AI in accordance with the principles set out in this order and in other references related to AI listed herein; and

(ix) requirements for public reporting on compliance with this guidance.

Section 10.1(b) of the AI Executive Order establishes two sets or types of requirements.

First, there are internal governance requirements and these revolve around the appointment of Chief Artificial Intelligence Officers (CAIOs), AI Governance Boards, their roles, and support structures. This set of requirements seeks to strengthen the ability of Federal Agencies to understand AI and to provide effective safeguards in its governmental use. The crucial set of substantive protections from this internal perspective derives from the required minimum risk-management practices for Government uses of AI, which is directly placed under the responsibility of the relevant CAIO.

Second, there are external (or relational) governance requirements that revolve around the agency’s ability to control and challenge tech providers. This involves the transfer (back to back) of minimum risk-management practices to AI contractors, but also includes commercial considerations. The tone of the Executive Order indicates that this set of requirements is meant to neutralise risks of commercial capture and commercial determination by imposing oversight and external verification. From an AI procurement governance perspective, the requirements in Section 10.1(b)(viii) are particularly relevant. As some of those requirements will need further development with a view to their operationalisation, Section 10.1(d)(ii) of the AI Executive Order requires the Director of OMB to develop an initial means to ensure that agency contracts for the acquisition of AI systems and services align with its Section 10.1(b) guidance.

Procurement in the Draft AI in Government Policy

The guidance required by Section 10.1(b) of the AI Executive Order has been formulated in the Draft AI in Government Policy, which offers more detail on the relevant governance mechanisms and the requirements for AI procurement. Section 5 on managing risks from the use of AI is particularly relevant from an AI procurement perspective. While Section 5(d) refers explicitly to managing risks in AI procurement, given that the primary substantive obligations will arise from the need to comply with the required minimum risk-management practices for Government uses of AI, this specific guidance needs to be read in the broader context of AI risk-management within Section 5 of the Draft AI in Government Policy.

Scope

The Draft AI in Government Policy relies on a tiered approach to AI risk by imposing specific obligations in relation to safety-impacting and rights-impacting AI only. This is an important element of the policy because these two categories are defined (in Section 6) and in principle will cover pre-established lists of AI use, based on a set of presumptions (Section 5(b)(i) and (ii)). However, CAIOs will be able to waive the application of minimum requirements for specific AI uses where, ‘based upon a system-specific risk assessment, [it is shown] that fulfilling the requirement would increase risks to safety or rights overall or would create an unacceptable impediment to critical agency operations‘ (Section 5(c)(iii)). Therefore, these are not closed lists and the specific scope of coverage of the policy will vary with such determinations. There are also some exclusions from minimum requirements where the AI is used for narrow purposes (Section 5(c)(i))—notably the ‘Evaluation of a potential vendor, commercial capability, or freely available AI capability that is not otherwise used in agency operations, solely for the purpose of making a procurement or acquisition decision’; AI evaluation in the context of regulatory enforcement, law enforcement or national security action; or research and development.

This scope of the policy may be under-inclusive, or generate risks of under-inclusiveness at the boundary, in two respects. First, the way AI is defined for the purposes of the Draft AI in Government Policy, excludes ‘robotic process automation or other systems whose behavior is defined only by human-defined rules or that learn solely by repeating an observed practice exactly as it was conducted’ (Section 6). This could be under-inclusive to the extent that the minimum risk-management practices for Government uses of AI create requirements that are not otherwise applicable to Government use of (non-AI) algorithms. There is a commonality of risks (eg discrimination, data governance risks) that would be better managed if there was a joined up approach. Moreover, developing minimum practices in relation to those means of automation would serve to develop institutional capability that could then support the adoption of AI as defined in the policy. Second, the variability in coverage stemming from consideration of ‘unacceptable impediments to critical agency operations‘ opens the door to potentially problematic waivers. While these are subject to disclosure and notification to OMB, it is not entirely clear on what grounds OMB could challenge those waivers. This is thus an area where the guidance may require further development.

extensions and waivers

In relation to covered safety-impacting or rights-impacting AI (as above), Section 5(a)(i) establishes the important principle that US Federal Government agencies have until 1 August 2024 to implement the minimum practices in Section 5(c), ‘or else stop using any AI that is not compliant with the minimum practices’. This type of sunset clause concerning the currently implicit authorisation for the use of AI is a potentially powerful mechanism. However, the Draft also establishes that such obligation to discontinue non-compliant AI use must be ‘consistent with the details and caveats in that section [5(c)]’, which includes the possibility, until 1 August 2024, for agencies to

request from OMB an extension of limited and defined duration for a particular use of AI that cannot feasibly meet the minimum requirements in this section by that date. The request must be accompanied by a detailed justification for why the agency cannot achieve compliance for the use case in question and what practices the agency has in place to mitigate the risks from noncompliance, as well as a plan for how the agency will come to implement the full set of required minimum practices from this section.

Again, the guidance does not detail on what grounds OMB would grant those extensions or how long they would be for. There is a clear interaction between the extension and waiver mechanism. For example, an agency that saw its request for an extension declined could try to waive that particular AI use—or agencies could simply try to waive AI uses rather than applying for extensions, as the requirements for a waiver seem to be rather different (and potentially less demanding) than those applicable to a waiver. In that regard, it seems that waiver determinations are ‘all or nothing’, whereas the system could be more flexible (and protective) if waiver decisions not only needed to explain why meeting the minimum requirements would generate the heightened overall risks or pose such ‘unacceptable impediments to critical agency operations‘, but also had to meet the lower burden of mitigation currently expected in extension applications, concerning detailed justification for what practices the agency has in place to mitigate the risks from noncompliance where they can be partly mitigated. In other words, it would be preferable to have a more continuous spectrum of mitigation measures in the context of waivers as well.

general minimum practices

Both in relation to safety- and rights-impact AI uses, the Draft AI in Government Policy would require agencies to engage in risk management both before and while using AI.

Preventative measures include:

  • completing an AI Impact Assessment documenting the intended purpose of the AI and its expected benefit, the potential risks of using AI, and and analysis of the quality and appropriateness of the relevant data;

  • testing the AI for performance in a real-world context—that is, testing under conditions that ‘mirror as closely as possible the conditions in which the AI will be deployed’; and

  • independently evaluate the AI, with the particularly important requirement that ‘The independent reviewing authority must not have been directly involved in the system’s development.’ In my view, it would also be important for the independent reviewing authority not to be involved in the future use of the AI, as its (future) operational interest could also be a source of bias in the testing process and the analysis of its results.

In-use measures include:

  • conducting ongoing monitoring and establish thresholds for periodic human review, with a focus on monitoring ‘degradation to the AI’s functionality and to detect changes in the AI’s impact on rights or safety’—‘human review, including renewed testing for performance of the AI in a real-world context, must be conducted at least annually, and after significant modifications to the AI or to the conditions or context in which the AI is used’;

  • mitigating emerging risks to rights and safety—crucially, ‘Where the AI’s risks to rights or safety exceed an acceptable level and where mitigation is not practicable, agencies must stop using the affected AI as soon as is practicable’. In that regard, the draft indicates that ‘Agencies are responsible for determining how to safely decommission AI that was already in use at the time of this memorandum’s release without significant disruptions to essential government functions’, but it would seem that this is also a process that would benefit from close oversight by OMB as it would otherwise jeopardise the effectiveness of the extension and waiver mechanisms discussed above—in which case additional detail in the guidance would be required;

  • ensuring adequate human training and assessment;

  • providing appropriate human consideration as part of decisions that pose a high risk to rights or safety; and

  • providing public notice and plain-language documentation through the AI use case inventory—however, this is subject a large number of caveats (notice must be ‘consistent with applicable law and governmentwide guidance, including those concerning protection of privacy and of sensitive law enforcement, national security, and other protected information’) and more detailed guidance on how to assess these issues would be welcome (if it exists, a cross-reference in the draft policy would be helpful).

additional minimum practices for rights-impacting ai

In relation to rights-affecting AI only, the Draft AI in Government Policy would require agencies to take additional measures.

Preventative measures include:

  • take steps to ensure that the AI will advance equity, dignity, and fairness—including proactively identifying and removing factors contributing to algorithmic discrimination or bias; assessing and mitigating disparate impacts; and using representative data; and

  • consult and incorporate feedback from affected groups.

In-use measures include:

  • conducting ongoing monitoring and mitigation for AI-enabled discrimination;

  • notifying negatively affected individuals—this is an area where the draft guidance is rather woolly, as it also includes a set of complex caveats, as individual notice that ‘AI meaningfully influences the outcome of decisions specifically concerning them, such as the denial of benefits’ must only be given ‘[w]here practicable and consistent with applicable law and governmentwide guidance’. Moreover, the draft only indicates that ‘Agencies are also strongly encouraged to provide explanations for such decisions and actions’, but not required to. In my view, this tackles two of the most important implications for individuals in Government use of AI: the possibility to understand why decisions are made (reason giving duties) and the burden of challenging automated decisions, which is increased if there is a lack of transparency on the automation. Therefore, on this point, the guidance seems too tepid—especially bearing in mind that this requirement only applies to ‘AI whose output serves as a basis for decision or action that has a legal, material, or similarly significant effect on an individual’s’ civil rights, civil liberties, or privacy; equal opportunities; or access to critical resources or services. In these cases, it seems clear that notice and explainability requirements need to go further.

  • maintaining human consideration and remedy processes—including ‘potential remedy to the use of the AI by a fallback and escalation system in the event that an impacted individual would like to appeal or contest the AI’s negative impacts on them. In developing appropriate remedies, agencies should follow OMB guidance on calculating administrative burden and the remedy process should not place unnecessary burden on the impacted individual. When law or governmentwide guidance precludes disclosure of the use of AI or an opportunity for an individual appeal, agencies must create appropriate mechanisms for human oversight of rights-impacting AI’. This is another crucial area concerning rights not to be subjected to fully-automated decision-making where there is no meaningful remedy. This is also an area of the guidance that requires more detail, especially as to what is the adequate balance of burdens where eg the agency can automate the undoing of negative effects on individuals identified as a result of challenges by other individuals or in the context of the broader monitoring of the functioning and effects of the rights-impacting AI. In my view, this would be an opportunity to mandate automation of remediation in a meaningful way.

  • maintaining options to opt-out where practicable.

procurement related practices

In addition to the need for agencies to be able to meet the above requirements in relation to procured AI—which will in itself create the need to cascade some of the requirements down to contractors, and which will be the object of future guidance on how to ensure that AI contracts align with the requirements—the Draft AI in Government Policy also requires that agencies procuring AI manage risks by:

  • aligning to National Values and Law by ensuring ‘that procured AI exhibits due respect for our Nation’s values, is consistent with the Constitution, and complies with all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including those addressing privacy, confidentiality, copyright, human and civil rights, and civil liberties’;

  • taking ‘steps to ensure transparency and adequate performance for their procured AI, including by: obtaining adequate documentation of procured AI, such as through the use of model, data, and system cards; regularly evaluating AI-performance claims made by Federal contractors, including in the particular environment where the agency expects to deploy the capability; and considering contracting provisions that incentivize the continuous improvement of procured AI’;

  • taking ‘appropriate steps to ensure that Federal AI procurement practices promote opportunities for competition among contractors and do not improperly entrench incumbents. Such steps may include promoting interoperability and ensuring that vendors do not inappropriately favor their own products at the expense of competitors’ offering’;

  • maximizing the value of data for AI; and

  • responsibly procuring Generative AI.

These high level requirements are well targeted and compliance with them would go a long way to fostering ‘responsible AI procurement’ through adequate risk mitigation in ways that still allow the procurement mechanism to harness market forces to generate value for money.

However, operationalising these requirements will be complex and the further OMB guidance should be rather detailed and practical.

Final thoughts

In my view, the AI Executive Order and the Draft AI in Government Policy lay the foundations for a significant strengthening of the governance of AI procurement with a view to embedding safeguards in public sector AI use. A crucially important characteristic in the design of these governance mechanisms is that it imposes significant duties on the agencies seeking to procure and use the AI, and it explicitly seeks to address risks of commercial capture and commercial determination. Another crucially important characteristic is that, at least in principle, use of AI is made conditional on compliance with a rather comprehensive set of preventative and in-use risk mitigation measures. The general aspects of this governance approach thus offer a very valuable blueprint for other jurisdictions considering how to boost AI procurement governance.

However, as always, the devil is in the details. One of the crucial risks in this approach to AI governance concerns a lack of independence of the entities making the relevant assessments. In the Draft AI in Government Policy, there are some risks of under-inclusion and/or excessive waivers of compliance with the relevant requirements (both explicit and implicit, through protracted processes of decommissioning of non-compliant AI), as well as a risk that ‘practical considerations’ will push compliance with the risk mitigation requirements well past the (ambitious) 1 August 2024 deadline through long or rolling extensions.

To mitigate for this, the guidance should be much clearer on the role of OMB in extension, waiver and decommissioning decisions, as well as in relation to the specific criteria and limits that should form part of those decisions. Only by ensuring adequate OMB intervention can a system of governance that still does not entirely (organisationally) separate procurement, use and oversight decisions reach the levels of independent verification required not only to neutralise commercial determination, but also operational dependency and the ‘policy irresistibility’ of digital technologies.

Thoughts on the AI Safety Summit from a public sector procurement & use of AI perspective

The UK Government hosted an AI Safety Summit on 1-2 November 2023. A summary of the targeted discussions in a set of 8 roundtables has been published for Day 1, as well as a set of Chair’s statements for Day 2, including considerations around safety testing, the state of the science, and a general summary of discussions. There is also, of course, the (flagship?) Bletchley Declaration, and an introduction to the announced AI Safety Institute (UK AISI).

In this post, I collect some of my thoughts on these outputs of the AI Safety Summit from the perspective of public sector procurement and use of AI.

What was said at the AI safety Summit?

Although the summit was narrowly targeted to discussion of ‘frontier AI’ as particularly advanced AI systems, some of the discussions seem to have involved issues also applicable to less advanced (ie currently in existence) AI systems, and even to non-AI algorithms used by the public sector. As the general summary reflects, ‘There was also substantive discussion of the impact of AI upon wider societal issues, and suggestions that such risks may themselves pose an urgent threat to democracy, human rights, and equality. Participants expressed a range of views as to which risks should be prioritised, noting that addressing frontier risks is not mutually exclusive from addressing existing AI risks and harms.’ Crucially, ‘participants across both days noted a range of current AI risks and harmful impacts, and reiterated the need for them to be tackled with the same energy, cross-disciplinary expertise, and urgency as risks at the frontier.’ Hopefully, then, some of the rather far-fetched discussions of future existential risks can be conducive to taking action on current harms and risks arising from the procurement and use of less advanced systems.

There seemed to be some recognition of the need for more State intervention through regulation, for more regulatory control of standard-setting, and for more attention to be paid to testing and evaluation in the procurement context. For example, the summary of Day 1 discussions indicates that participants agreed that

  • ‘We should invest in basic research, including in governments’ own systems. Public procurement is an opportunity to put into practice how we will evaluate and use technology.’ (Roundtable 4)

  • ‘Company policies are just the baseline and don’t replace the need for governments to set standards and regulate. In particular, standardised benchmarks will be required from trusted external third parties such as the recently announced UK and US AI Safety Institutes.’ (Roundtable 5)

In Day 2, in the context of safety testing, participants agreed that

  • Governments have a responsibility for the overall framework for AI in their countries, including in relation to standard setting. Governments recognise their increasing role for seeing that external evaluations are undertaken for frontier AI models developed within their countries in accordance with their locally applicable legal frameworks, working in collaboration with other governments with aligned interests and relevant capabilities as appropriate, and taking into account, where possible, any established international standards.

  • Governments plan, depending on their circumstances, to invest in public sector capability for testing and other safety research, including advancing the science of evaluating frontier AI models, and to work in partnership with the private sector and other relevant sectors, and other governments as appropriate to this end.

  • Governments will plan to collaborate with one another and promote consistent approaches in this effort, and to share the outcomes of these evaluations, where sharing can be done safely, securely and appropriately, with other countries where the frontier AI model will be deployed.

This could be a basis on which to build an international consensus on the need for more robust and decisive regulation of AI development and testing, as well as a consensus of the sets of considerations and constraints that should be applicable to the procurement and use of AI by the public sector in a way that is compliant with individual (human) rights and social interests. The general summary reflects that ‘Participants welcomed the exchange of ideas and evidence on current and upcoming initiatives, including individual countries’ efforts to utilise AI in public service delivery and elsewhere to improve human wellbeing. They also affirmed the need for the benefits of AI to be made widely available’.

However, some statements seem at first sight contradictory or problematic. While the excerpt above stresses that ‘Governments have a responsibility for the overall framework for AI in their countries, including in relation to standard setting’ (emphasis added), the general summary also stresses that ‘The UK and others recognised the importance of a global digital standards ecosystem which is open, transparent, multi-stakeholder and consensus-based and many standards bodies were noted, including the International Standards Organisation (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and relevant study groups of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).’ Quite how State responsibility for standard setting fits with industry-led standard setting by such organisations is not only difficult to fathom, but also one of the potentially most problematic issues due to the risk of regulatory tunnelling that delegation of standard setting without a verification or certification mechanism entails.

Moreover, there seemed to be insufficient agreement around crucial issues, which are summarised as ‘a set of more ambitious policies to be returned to in future sessions’, including:

‘1. Multiple participants suggested that existing voluntary commitments would need to be put on a legal or regulatory footing in due course. There was agreement about the need to set common international standards for safety, which should be scientifically measurable.

2. It was suggested that there might be certain circumstances in which governments should apply the principle that models must be proven to be safe before they are deployed, with a presumption that they are otherwise dangerous. This principle could be applied to the current generation of models, or applied when certain capability thresholds were met. This would create certain ‘gates’ that a model had to pass through before it could be deployed.

3. It was suggested that governments should have a role in testing models not just pre- and post-deployment, but earlier in the lifecycle of the model, including early in training runs. There was a discussion about the ability of governments and companies to develop new tools to forecast the capabilities of models before they are trained.

4. The approach to safety should also consider the propensity for accidents and mistakes; governments could set standards relating to how often the machine could be allowed to fail or surprise, measured in an observable and reproducible way.

5. There was a discussion about the need for safety testing not just in the development of models, but in their deployment, since some risks would be contextual. For example, any AI used in critical infrastructure, or equivalent use cases, should have an infallible off-switch.

…

8. Finally, the participants also discussed the question of equity, and the need to make sure that the broadest spectrum was able to benefit from AI and was shielded from its harms.’

All of these are crucial considerations in relation to the regulation of AI development, (procurement) and use. A lack of consensus around these issues already indicates that there was a generic agreement that some regulation is necessary, but much more limited agreement on what regulation is necessary. This is clearly reflected in what was actually agreed at the summit.

What was agreed at the AI Safety Summit?

Despite all the discussions, little was actually agreed at the AI Safety Summit. The Blethcley Declaration includes a lengthy (but rather uncontroversial?) description of the potential benefits and actual risks of (frontier) AI, some rather generic agreement that ‘something needs to be done’ (eg welcoming ‘the recognition that the protection of human rights, transparency and explainability, fairness, accountability, regulation, safety, appropriate human oversight, ethics, bias mitigation, privacy and data protection needs to be addressed’) and very limited and unspecific commitments.

Indeed, signatories only ‘committed’ to a joint agenda, comprising:

  • ‘identifying AI safety risks of shared concern, building a shared scientific and evidence-based understanding of these risks, and sustaining that understanding as capabilities continue to increase, in the context of a wider global approach to understanding the impact of AI in our societies.

  • building respective risk-based policies across our countries to ensure safety in light of such risks, collaborating as appropriate while recognising our approaches may differ based on national circumstances and applicable legal frameworks. This includes, alongside increased transparency by private actors developing frontier AI capabilities, appropriate evaluation metrics, tools for safety testing, and developing relevant public sector capability and scientific research’ (emphases added).

This does not amount to much that would not happen anyway and, given that one of the UK Government’s objectives for the Summit was to create mechanisms for global collaboration (‘a forward process for international collaboration on frontier AI safety, including how best to support national and international frameworks’), this agreement for each jurisdiction to do things as they see fit in accordance to their own circumstances and collaborate ‘as appropriate’ in view of those seems like a very poor ‘win’.

In reality, there seems to be little coming out of the Summit other than a plan to continue the conversations in 2024. Given what had been said in one of the roundtables (num 5) in relation to the need to put in place adequate safeguards: ‘this work is urgent, and must be put in place in months, not years’; it looks like the ‘to be continued’ approach won’t do or, at least, cannot be claimed to have made much of a difference.

What did the UK Government promise in the AI Summit?

A more specific development announced with the occasion of the Summit (and overshadowed by the earlier US announcement) is that the UK will create the AI Safety Institute (UK AISI), a ‘state-backed organisation focused on advanced AI safety for the public interest. Its mission is to minimise surprise to the UK and humanity from rapid and unexpected advances in AI. It will work towards this by developing the sociotechnical infrastructure needed to understand the risks of advanced AI and enable its governance.’

Crucially, ‘The Institute will focus on the most advanced current AI capabilities and any future developments, aiming to ensure that the UK and the world are not caught off guard by progress at the frontier of AI in a field that is highly uncertain. It will consider open-source systems as well as those deployed with various forms of access controls. Both AI safety and security are in scope’ (emphasis added). This seems to carry forward the extremely narrow focus on ‘frontier AI’ and catastrophic risks that augured a failure of the Summit. It is also in clear contrast with the much more sensible and repeated assertions/consensus in that other types of AI cause very significant risks and that there is ‘a range of current AI risks and harmful impacts, and reiterated the need for them to be tackled with the same energy, cross-disciplinary expertise, and urgency as risks at the frontier.’

Also crucially, UK AISI ‘is not a regulator and will not determine government regulation. It will collaborate with existing organisations within government, academia, civil society, and the private sector to avoid duplication, ensuring that activity is both informing and complementing the UK’s regulatory approach to AI as set out in the AI Regulation white paper’.

According to initial plans, UK AISI ‘will initially perform 3 core functions:

  • Develop and conduct evaluations on advanced AI systems, aiming to characterise safety-relevant capabilities, understand the safety and security of systems, and assess their societal impacts

  • Drive foundational AI safety research, including through launching a range of exploratory research projects and convening external researchers

  • Facilitate information exchange, including by establishing – on a voluntary basis and subject to existing privacy and data regulation – clear information-sharing channels between the Institute and other national and international actors, such as policymakers, international partners, private companies, academia, civil society, and the broader public’

It is also stated that ‘We see a key role for government in providing external evaluations independent of commercial pressures and supporting greater standardisation and promotion of best practice in evaluation more broadly.’ However, the extent to which UK AISI will be able to do that will hinge on issues that are not currently clear (or publicly disclosed), such as the membership of UK AISI or its institutional set up (as ‘state-backed organisation’ does not say much about this).

On that very point, it is somewhat problematic that the UK AISI ‘is an evolution of the UK’s Frontier AI Taskforce. The Frontier AI Taskforce was announced by the Prime Minister and Technology Secretary in April 2023’ (ahem, as ‘Foundation Model Taskforce’—so this is the second rebranding of the same initiative in half a year). As is problematic that UK AISI ‘will continue the Taskforce’s safety research and evaluations. The other core parts of the Taskforce’s mission will remain in [the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology] as policy functions: identifying new uses for AI in the public sector; and strengthening the UK’s capabilities in AI.’ I find the retention of analysis pertaining to public sector AI use within government problematic and a clear indication of the UK’s Government unwillingness to put meaningful mechanisms in place to monitor the process of public sector digitalisation. UK AISI very much sounds like a research institute with a focus on a very narrow set of AI systems and with a remit that will hardly translate into relevant policymaking in areas in dire need of regulation. Finally, it is also very problematic that funding is not locked: ‘The Institute will be backed with a continuation of the Taskforce’s 2024 to 2025 funding as an annual amount for the rest of this decade, subject to it demonstrating the continued requirement for that level of public funds.’ In reality, this means that the Institute’s continued existence will depend on the Government’s satisfaction with its work and the direction of travel of its activities and outputs. This is not at all conducive to independence, in my view.

So, all in all, there is very little new in the announcement of the creation of the UK AISI and, while there is a (theoretical) possibility for the Institute to make a positive contribution to regulating AI procurement and use (in the public sector), this seems extremely remote and potentially undermined by the Institute’s institutional set up. This is probably in stark contrast with the US approach the UK is trying to mimic (though more on the US approach in a future entry).

European Commission wants to see more AI procurement. Ok, but priorities need reordering

The European Commission recently published its 2023 State of the Digital Decade report. One of its key takeaways is that the Commission recommends Member States to step up innovation procurement investments in digital sector.

The Commission has identified that ‘While the roll-out of digital public services is progressing steadily, investment in public procurement of innovative digital solutions (e.g. based on AI or big data) is insufficient and would need to increase substantially from EUR 188 billon to EUR 295 billon in order to reach full speed adoption of innovative digital solutions in public services’ (para 4.2, original emphasis).

The Commission has thus recommended that ‘Member States should step up investment and regulatory measures to develop and make available secure, sovereign and interoperable digital solutions for online public and government services’; and that ‘Member States should develop action plans in support of innovation procurement and step up efforts to increase public procurement investments in developing, testing and deploying innovative digital solutions’.

Tucked away in a different part of the report (which, frankly, has a rather odd structure), the Commission also recommends that ‘Member States should foster the availability of legal and technical support to procure and implement trustworthy and sovereign AI solutions across sectors.’

To my mind, the priorities for investment of public money need to be further clarified. Without a significant investment in an ambitious plan to quickly expand the public sector’s digital skills and capabilities, there can be no hope that increased procurement expenditure in digital technologies will bring adequate public sector digitalisation or foster the public interest more broadly.

Without a sophisticated public buyer that can adequately cut through the process of technological innovation, there is no hope that ‘throwing money at the problem’ will bring meaningful change. In my view, the focus and priority should be on upskilling the public sector before anything else—including ahead of the also recommended mobilisation of ‘public policies, including innovative procurement to foster the scaling up of start-ups, to facilitate the creation of spinoffs from universities and research centres, and to monitor progress in this area’ (para 3.2.3). Perhaps a substantial fraction of the 100+ billion EUR the Commission expects Member States to put into public sector digitalisation could go to building up the required capability… too much to ask?

G7 Guiding Principles and Code of Conduct on Artificial Intelligence -- some comments from a UK perspective

On 30 October 2023, G7 leaders published the Hiroshima Process International Guiding Principles for Advanced AI system (the G7 AI Principles), a non-exhaustive list of guiding principles formulated as a living document that builds on the OECD AI Principles to take account of recent developments in advanced AI systems. The G7 stresses that these principles should apply to all AI actors, when and as applicable to cover the design, development, deployment and use of advanced AI systems.

The G7 AI Principles are supported by a voluntary Code of Conduct for Advanced AI Systems (the G7 AI Code of Conduct), which is meant to provide guidance to help seize the benefits and address the risks and challenges brought by these technologies.

The G7 AI Principles and Code of Conduct came just two days before the start of the UK’s AI Safety Summit 2023. Given that the UK is part of the G7 and has endorsed the G7 Hiroshima Process and its outcomes, the interaction between the G7’s documents, the UK Government’s March 2023 ‘pro-innovation’ approach to AI and its aspirations for the AI Safety Summit deserves some comment.

G7 AI Principles and Code of Conduct

The G7 AI Principles aim ‘to promote safe, secure, and trustworthy AI worldwide and will provide guidance for organizations developing and using the most advanced AI systems, including the most advanced foundation models and generative AI systems.’ The principles are meant to be cross-cutting, as they target ‘among others, entities from academia, civil society, the private sector, and the public sector.’ Importantly, also, the G7 AI Principles are meant to be a stop gap solution, as G7 leaders ‘call on organizations in consultation with other relevant stakeholders to follow these [principles], in line with a risk-based approach, while governments develop more enduring and/or detailed governance and regulatory approaches.’

The principles include the reminder that ‘[w]hile harnessing the opportunities of innovation, organizations should respect the rule of law, human rights, due process, diversity, fairness and non-discrimination, democracy, and human-centricity, in the design, development and deployment of advanced AI system’, as well as a reminder that organizations developing and deploying AI should not undermine democratic values, harm individuals or communities, ‘facilitate terrorism, enable criminal misuse, or pose substantial risks to safety, security, and human rights’. State (AI users) are reminder of their ‘obligations under international human rights law to promote that human rights are fully respected and protected’ and private sector actors are called to align their activities ‘with international frameworks such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’.

These are all very high level declarations and aspirations that do not go much beyond pre-existing commitments and (soft) law norms, if at all.

The G7 AI Principles comprises a non-exhaustive list of 11 high-level regulatory goals that organizations should abide by ‘commensurate to the risks’—ie following the already mentioned risk-based approach—which introduces a first element of uncertainty because the document does not establish any methodology or explanation on how risks should be assessed and tiered (one of the primary, and debated, features of the proposed EU AI Act). The principles are the following, prefaced by my own labelling between square brackets:

  1. [risk identification, evaluation and mitigation] Take appropriate measures throughout the development of advanced AI systems, including prior to and throughout their deployment and placement on the market, to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks across the AI lifecycle;

  2. [misuse monitoring] Patterns of misuse, after deployment including placement on the market;

  3. [transparency and accountability] Publicly report advanced AI systems’ capabilities, limitations and domains of appropriate and inappropriate use, to support ensuring sufficient transparency, thereby contributing to increase accountability.

  4. [incident intelligence exchange] Work towards responsible information sharing and reporting of incidents among organizations developing advanced AI systems including with industry, governments, civil society, and academia.

  5. [risk management governance] Develop, implement and disclose AI governance and risk management policies, grounded in a risk-based approach – including privacy policies, and mitigation measures, in particular for organizations developing advanced AI systems.

  6. [(cyber) security] Invest in and implement robust security controls, including physical security, cybersecurity and insider threat safeguards across the AI lifecycle.

  7. [content authentication and watermarking] Develop and deploy reliable content authentication and provenance mechanisms, where technically feasible, such as watermarking or other techniques to enable users to identify AI-generated content.

  8. [risk mitigation priority] Prioritize research to mitigate societal, safety and security risks and prioritize investment in effective mitigation measures.

  9. [grand challenges priority] Prioritize the development of advanced AI systems to address the world’s greatest challenges, notably but not limited to the climate crisis, global health and education.

  10. [technical standardisation] Advance the development of and, where appropriate, adoption of international technical standards.

  11. [personal data and IP safeguards] Implement appropriate data input measures and protections for personal data and intellectual property.

Each of the principles is accompanied by additional guidance or precision, where possible, and this is further developed in the G7 Code of Conduct.

In my view, the list is a bit of a mixed bag.

There are some very general aspirations or steers that can hardly be considered principles of AI regulation, for example principle 9 setting a grand challenges priority and, possibly, principle 8 setting a risk mitigation priority beyond the ‘requirements’ of principle 1 on risk identification, evaluation and mitigation—which thus seems to boil down to the more specific steer in the G7 Code of Conduct for (private) organisations to ‘share research and best practices on risk mitigation’.

Quite how these principles could be complied by current major AI developers seems rather difficult to foresee, especially in relation to principle 9. Most developers of generative AI or other AI applications linked to eg social media platforms will have a hard time demonstrating their engagement with this principle, unless we accept a general justification of ‘general purpose application’ or ‘dual use application’—which to me seems quite unpalatable. What is the purpose of this principle if eg it pushes organisations away from engaging with the rest of the G7 AI Principles? Or if organisations are allowed to gloss over it in any (future) disclosures linked to an eventual mechanism of commitment, chartering, or labelling associated with the principles? It seems like the sort of purely political aspiration that may have been better left aside.

Some other principles seem to push at an open door, such as principle 10 on the development of international technical standards. Again, the only meaningful detail seems to be in the G7 Code of Conduct, which specifies that ‘In particular, organizations also are encouraged to work to develop interoperable international technical standards and frameworks to help users distinguish content generated by AI from non-AI generated content.’ However, this is closely linked to principle 7 on content authentication and watermarking, so it is not clear how much that adds. Moreover, this comes to further embed the role of industry-led technical standards as a foundational element of AI regulation, with all the potential problems that arise from it (for some discussion from the perspective of regulatory tunnelling, see here and here).

Yet other principles present as relatively soft requirements or ‘noble’ commitments issues that are, in reality, legal requirements already binding on entities and States and that, in my view, should have been placed as hard obligations and a renewed commitment from G7 States to enforce them. These include principle 11 on personal data and IP safeguards, where the G7 Code of Conduct includes as an apparent after thought that ‘Organizations should also comply with applicable legal frameworks’. In my view, this should be starting point.

This reduces the list of AI Principles ‘proper’. But, even then, they can be further grouped and synthesised, in my view. For example, principles 1 and 5 are both about risk management, with the (outward-looking) governance layer of principle 5 seeking to give transparency to the (inward-looking) governance layer in principle 1. Principle 2 seems to simply seek to extend the need to engage with risk-based management post-market placement, which is also closely connected to the (inward-looking) governance layer in principle 1. All of them focus on the (undefined) risk-based approach to development and deployment of AI underpinning the G7’s AI Principles and Code of Conduct.

Some aspects of the incident intelligence exchange also relate to principle 1, while some other aspects relate to (cyber) security issues encapsulated in principle 6. However, given that this principle may be a placeholder for the development of some specific mechanisms of collaboration—either based on cyber security collaboration or other approaches, such as the much touted aviation industry’s—it may be treated separately.

Perhaps, then, the ‘core’ AI Principles arising from the G7 document could be trimmed down to:

  • Life-cycle risk-based management and governance, inclusive of principles 1, 2, and 5.

  • Transparency and accountability, principle 3.

  • Incident intelligence exchange, principle 4.

  • (Cyber) security, principle 6.

  • Content authentication and watermarking, principle 7 (though perhaps narrowly targeted to generative AI).

Most of the value in the G7 AI Principles and Code of Conduct thus arises from the pointers for collaboration, the more detailed self-regulatory measures, and the more specific potential commitments included in the latter. For example, in relation to the potential AI risks that are identified as potential targets for the risk assessments expected of AI developers (under guidance related to principle 1), or the desirable content of AI-related disclosures (under guidance related to principle 3).

It is however unclear how these principles will evolve when adopted at the national level, and to what extent they offer a sufficient blueprint to ensure international coherence in the development of the ‘more enduring and/or detailed governance and regulatory approaches’ envisaged by G7 leaders. It seems for example striking that both the EU and the UK have supported these principles, given that they have relatively opposing approaches to AI regulation—with the EU seeking to finalise the legislative negotiations on the first ‘golden standard’ of AI regulation and the UK taking an entirely deregulatory approach. Perhaps this is in itself an indication that, even at the level of detail achieved in the G7 AI Code of Conduct, the regulatory leeway is quite broad and still necessitates significant further concretisation for it to be meaningful in operational terms—as evidenced eg by the US President’s ‘Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence’, which calls for that concretisation and provides a good example of the many areas for detailed work required to translate high level principles into actionable requirements (even if it leaves enforcement still undefined).

How do the G7 Principles compare to the UK’s ‘pro-innovation’ ones?

In March 2023, the UK Government published its white paper ‘A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation’ (the ‘UK AI White Paper’; for a critique, see here). The UK AI White Paper indicated (at para 10) that its ‘framework is underpinned by five principles to guide and inform the responsible development and use of AI in all sectors of the economy:

  • Safety, security and robustness

  • Appropriate transparency and explainability

  • Fairness

  • Accountability and governance

  • Contestability and redress’.

A comparison of the UK and the G7 principles can show a few things.

First, that there are some areas where there seems to be a clear correlation—in particular concerning (cyber) security as a self-standing challenge requiring a direct regulatory focus.

Second, that it is hard to decide at which level to place incommensurable aspects of AI regulation. Notably, the G7 principles do not directly refer to fairness—while the UK does. However, the G7 Principles do spend some time in the preamble addressing the issue of fairness and unacceptable AI use (though in a woolly manner). Whether placing this type of ‘requirement’ at a level or other makes a difference (at all) is highly debatable.

Third, that there are different ways of ‘packaging’ principles or (soft) obligations. Just like some of the G7 principles are closely connected or fold into each other (as above), so do the UK’s principles in relation to the G7’s. For example, the G7 packaged together transparency and accountability (principle 3), while the UK had them separated. While the UK explicitly mentioned the issue of AI explainability, this remains implicit in the G7 principles (also in principle 3).

Finally, in line with the considerations above, that distinct regulatory approaches only emerge or become clear once the ‘principles’ become specific (so they arguably stop being principles). For example, it seems clear that the G7 Principles aspire to higher levels of incident intelligence governance and to a specific target of generative AI watermarking than the UK’s. However, whether the G7 or the UK principles are equally or more demanding on any other dimension of AI regulation is close to impossible to establish. In my view, this further supports the need for a much more detailed AI regulatory framework—else, technical standards will entirely occupy that regulatory space.

What do the G7 AI Principles tell us about the UK’s AI Safety Summit?

The Hiroshima Process that has led to the adoption of the G7 AI Principles and Code of Conduct emerged from the Ministerial Declaration of The G7 Digital and Tech Ministers’ Meeting of 30 April 2023, which explicitly stated that:

‘Given that generative AI technologies are increasingly prominent across countries and sectors, we recognise the need to take stock in the near term of the opportunities and challenges of these technologies and to continue promoting safety and trust as these technologies develop. We plan to convene future G7 discussions on generative AI which could include topics such as governance, how to safeguard intellectual property rights including copyright, promote transparency, address disinformation, including foreign information manipulation, and how to responsibly utilise these technologies’ (at para 47).

The UK Government’s ambitions for the AI Safety Summit largely focus on those same issues, albeit within the very narrow confines of ‘frontier AI’, which it has defined as ‘highly capable general-purpose AI models that can perform a wide variety of tasks and match or exceed the capabilities present in today’s most advanced models‘. While the UK Government has published specific reports to focus discussion on (1) Capabilities and risks from frontier AI and (2) Emerging Processes for Frontier AI Safety, it is unclear how the level of detail of such narrow approach could translate into broader international commitments.

The G7 AI Principles already claim to tackle ‘the most advanced AI systems, including the most advanced foundation models and generative AI systems (henceforth "advanced AI systems")’ within their scope. It seems unclear that such approach would be based on a lack of knowledge or understanding of the detail the UK has condensed in those reports. It rather seems that the G7 was not ready to move quickly to a level of detail beyond that included in the G7 AI Code of Conduct. Whether significant further developments can be expected beyond the G7 AI Principles and Code of Conduct just two days after they were published seems hard to fathom.

Moreover, although the UK Government is downplaying the fact that eg Chinese participation in the AI Safety Summit is unclear and potentially rather marginal, it seems that, at best, the UK AI Safety Summit will be an opportunity for a continued conversation between G7 countries and a few others. It is also unclear whether significant progress will be made in a forum that seems rather clearly tilted towards industry voice and influence.

Let’s wait and see what the outcomes are, but I am not optimistic for significant progress other than, worryingly, a risk of further displacement of regulatory decision-making towards industry and industry-led (future) standards.

AI in the public sector: can procurement promote trustworthy AI and avoid commercial capture?

The recording and slides of the public lecture on ‘AI in the public sector: can procurement promote trustworthy AI and avoid commercial capture?’ I gave at the University of Bristol Law School on 4 July 2023 are now available. As always, any further comments most warmly received at: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.

This lecture brought my research project to an end. I will now focus on finalising the manuscript and sending it off to the publisher, and then take a break for the rest of the summer. I will share details of the forthcoming monograph in a few months. I hope to restart blogging in September. in the meantime, I wish all HTCaN friends all the best. Albert

Two policy briefings on digital technologies and procurement

Now that my research project ‘Digital technologies and public procurement. Gatekeeping and experimentation in digital public governance’ nears its end, some outputs start to emerge. In this post, I would like to highlight two policy briefings summarising some of my top-level policy recommendations, and providing links to more detailed analysis. All materials are available in the ‘Digital Procurement Governance’ tab.

Policy Briefing 1: ‘Guaranteeing public sector adoption of trustworthy AI - a task that should not be left to procurement’

What's the rush -- some thoughts on the UK's Foundation Model Taskforce and regulation by Twitter

I have been closely following developments on AI regulation in the UK, as part of the background research for the joint submission to the public consultation closing on Wednesday (see here and here). Perhaps surprisingly, the biggest developments do not concern the regulation of AI under the devolved model described in the ‘pro-innovation’ white paper, but its displacement outside existing regulatory regimes—both in terms of funding, and practical power.

Most of the activity and investments are not channelled towards existing resource-strained regulators to support them in their task of issuing guidance on how to deal with AI risks and harms—which stems from the white paper—but in digital industrial policy and R&D projects, including a new major research centre on responsible and trustworthy AI and a Foundation Model Taskforce. A first observation is that this type of investments can be worthwhile, but not at the expense of adequately resourcing regulators facing the tall order of AI regulation.

The UK’s Primer Minister is clearly making a move to use ‘world-leadership in AI safety’ as a major plank of his re-election bid in the coming Fall. I am not only sceptical about this move and its international reception, but also increasingly concerned about a tendency to ‘regulate by Twitter’ and to bullish approaches to regulatory and legal compliance that could well result in squandering a good part of the £100m set aside for the Taskforce.

In this blog, I offer some preliminary thoughts. Comments welcome!

Twitter announcements vs white paper?

During the preparation of our response to the AI public consultation, we had a moment of confusion. The Government published the white paper and an impact assessment supporting it, which primarily amount to doing nothing and maintaining the status quo (aka AI regulatory gap) in the UK. However, there were increasing reports of the Prime Minister’s change of heart after the emergence of a ‘doomer’ narrative peddled by OpenAI’s CEO and others. At some point, the PM sent out a tweet that made us wonder if the Government was changing policy and the abandoning the approach of the white paper even before the end of the public consultation. This was the tweet.

We could not locate any document describing the ‘Safe strategy of AI’, so the only conclusion we could reach is that the ‘strategy’ was the short twitter threat that followed that first tweet.

It was not only surprising that there was no detail, but also that there was no reference to the white paper or to any other official policy document. We were probably not the only ones confused about it (or so we hope!) as it is in general very confusing to have social media messaging pointing out towards regulatory interventions completely outside the existing frameworks—including live public consultations by the government!

It is also confusing to see multiple different documents make reference to different things, and later documents somehow reframing what previous documents mean.

For example, the announcement of the Foundation Model Taskforce came only a few weeks after the publication of the white paper, but there was no mention of it in the white paper itself. Is it possible that the Government had put together a significant funding package and related policy in under a month? Rather than whether it is possible, the question is why do things in this way? And how mature was the thinking behind the Taskforce?

For example, the initial announcement indicated that

The investment will build the UK’s ‘sovereign’ national capabilities so our public services can benefit from the transformational impact of this type of AI. The Taskforce will focus on opportunities to establish the UK as a world leader in foundation models and their applications across the economy, and acting as a global standard bearer for AI safety.

The funding will be invested by the Foundation Model Taskforce in foundation model infrastructure and public service procurement, to create opportunities for domestic innovation. The first pilots targeting public services are expected to launch in the next six months.

Less than two months later, the announcement of the appointment of the Taskforce chair (below) indicated that

… a key focus for the Taskforce in the coming months will be taking forward cutting-edge safety research in the run up to the first global summit on AI safety to be hosted in the UK later this year.

Bringing together expertise from government, industry and academia, the Taskforce will look at the risks surrounding AI. It will carry out research on AI safety and inform broader work on the development of international guardrails, such as shared safety and security standards and infrastructure, that could be put in place to address the risks.

Is it then a Taskforce and pot of money seeking to develop sovereign capabilities and to pilot public sector AI use, or a Taskforce seeking to develop R&D in AI safety? Can it be both? Is there money for both? Also, why steer the £100m Taskforce in this direction and simultaneously spend £31m in funding an academic-led research centre on ethical and trustworthy AI? Is the latter not encompassing issues of AI safety? How will all of these investments and initiatives be coordinated to avoid duplication of effort or replication of regulatory gaps in the disparate consideration of regulatory issues?

Funding and collaboration opportunities announced via Twitter?

Things can get even more confusing or worrying (for me). Yesterday, the Government put out an official announcement and heavy Twitter-based PR to announce the appointment of the Chair of the Foundation Model Taskforce. This announcement raises a few questions. Why on Sunday? What was the rush? Also, what was the process used to select the Chair, if there was one? I have no questions on the profile and suitability of the appointed Chair (have also not looked at them in detail), but I wonder … even if legally compliant to proceed without a formal process with an open call for expressions of interest, is this appropriate? Is the Government stretching the parallelism with the Vaccines Taskforce too far?

Relatedly, there has been no (or I have been unable to locate) official call for expressions of interest from those seeking to get involved with the Taskforce. However, once more, Twitter seems to have been the (pragmatic?) medium used by the newly appointed Chair of the Taskforce. On Sunday itself, this Twitter thread went out:

I find the last bit particularly shocking. A call for expressions of interest in participating in a project capable of spending up to £100m via Google Forms! (At the time of writing), the form is here and its content is as follows:

I find this approach to AI regulation rather concerning and can also see quite a few ways in which the emerging work approach can lead to breaches of procurement law and subsidies controls, or recruitment processes (depending on whether expressions of interest are corporate or individual). I also wonder what is the rush with all of this and what sort of record-keeping will be kept of all this so that it there is adequate accountability of this expenditure. What is the rush?

Or rather, I know that the rush is simply politically-driven and that this is another way in which public funds are at risk for the wrong reasons. But for the entirely arbitrary deadline of the ‘world AI safety summit’ the PM wants to host in the UK in the Fall — preferably ahead of any general election, I would think — it is almost impossible to justify the change of gear between the ‘do nothing’ AI white paper and the ‘rush everything’ approach driving the Taskforce. I hope we will not end up in another set of enquiries and reports, such as those stemming from the PPE procurement scandal or the ventilator challenge, but it is hard to see how this can all be done in a legally compliant manner, and with the serenity. clarity of view and long-term thinking required of regulatory design. Even in the field of AI. Unavoidably, more to follow.

Response to the UK’s March 2023 White Paper "A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation"

Together with colleagues at the Centre for Global Law and Innovation of the University of Bristol Law School, I submitted a response to the UK Government’s public consultation on its ‘pro-innovation’ approach to AI regulation. For an earlier assessment, see here.

The full submission is available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4477368, and this is the executive summary:

The white paper ‘A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation’ (the ‘AI WP’) claims to advance a ‘pro-innovation, proportionate, trustworthy, adaptable, clear and collaborative’ model that leverages the capabilities and skills of existing regulators to foster AI innovation. This model, we are told, would be underpinned by a set of principles providing a clear, unified, and flexible framework improving upon the current ‘complex patchwork of legal requirements’ and striking ‘the right balance between responding to risks and maximising opportunities.’

In this submission, we challenge such claims in the AI WP. We argue that:

  • The AI WP does not advance a balanced and proportionate approach to AI regulation, but rather, an “innovation first” approach that caters to industry and sidelines the public. The AI WP primarily serves a digital industrial policy goal ‘to make the UK one of the top places in the world to build foundational AI companies’. The public interest is downgraded and building public trust is approached instrumentally as a mechanism to promote AI uptake. Such an approach risks breaching the UK’s international obligations to create a legal framework that effectively protects fundamental rights in the face of AI risks. Additionally, in the context of public administration, poorly regulated AI could breach due process rules, putting public funds at risk.

  • The AI WP does not embrace an agile regulatory approach, but active deregulation. The AI WP stresses that the UK ‘must act quickly to remove existing barriers to innovation’ without explaining how any of the existing safeguards are no longer required in view of identified heightened AI risks. Coupled with the “innovation first” mandate, this deregulatory approach risks eroding regulatory independence and the effectiveness of the regulatory regimes the AI WP claims to seek to leverage. A more nuanced regulatory approach that builds on, rather than threatens, regulatory independence is required.

  • The AI WP builds on shaky foundations, including the absence of a mapping of current regulatory remits and powers. This makes it near impossible to assess the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the proposed approach, although there are clear indications that regulatory gaps will remain. The AI WP also presumes continuity in the legal framework, which ignores reforms currently promoted by Government and further reforms of the overarching legal regime repeatedly floated. It seems clear that some regulatory regimes will soon see their scope or stringency limited. The AI WP does not provide clear mechanisms to address these issues, which undermine its core claim that leveraging existing regulatory regimes suffices to address potential AI harms. This is perhaps particularly evident in the context of AI use for policing, which is affected by both the existence of regulatory gaps and limitations in existing legal safeguards.

  • The AI WP does not describe a full, workable regulatory model. Lack of detail on the institutional design to support the central function is a crucial omission. Crucial tasks are assigned to such central function without clarifying its institutional embedding, resourcing, accountability mechanisms, etc.

  • The AI WP foresees a government-dominated approach that further risks eroding regulatory independence, in particular given the “innovation first” criteria to be used in assessing the effectiveness of the proposed regime.

  • The principles-based approach to AI regulation suggested in the AI WP is undeliverable due to lack of detail on the meaning and regulatory implications of the principles, barriers to translation into enforceable requirements, and tensions with existing regulatory frameworks. The minimalistic legislative intervention entertained in the AI WP would not equip regulators to effectively enforce the general principles. Following the AI WP would also result in regulatory fragmentation and uncertainty and not resolve the identified problem of a ‘complex patchwork of legal requirements’.

  • The AI WP does not provide any route towards sufficiently addressing the digital capabilities gap, or towards mitigating new risks to capabilities, such as deskilling—which create significant constraints on the likely effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Full citation: A Charlesworth, K Fotheringham, C Gavaghan, A Sanchez-Graells and C Torrible, ‘Response to the UK’s March 2023 White Paper "A pro-innovation approach to AI regulation"’ (June 19, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4477368.

"Can Procurement Be Used to Effectively Regulate AI?" [recording]

The recording and slides for yesterday’s webinar on ‘Can Procurement Be Used to Effectively Regulate AI?’ co-hosted by the University of Bristol Law School and the GW Law Government Procurement Programme are now available for catch up if you missed it.

I would like to thank once again Dean Jessica Tillipman (GW Law), Dr Aris Georgopoulos (Nottingham), Elizabeth "Liz" Chirico (Acquisition Innovation Lead at Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army - Procurement) and Scott Simpson (Digital Transformation Lead, Department of Homeland Security Office of the Chief Procurement Officer - Procurement Innovation Lab) for really interesting discussion, and to all participants for their questions. Comments most welcome, as always.

ChatGPT in the Public Sector -- should it be banned?

In ‘ChatGPT in the Public Sector – overhyped or overlooked?’ (24 Apr 2023), the Analysis and Research Team (ART) of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union provides a useful and accessible explanation of how ChatGPT works, as well interesting analysis of the risks and pitfalls of rushing to embed generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), and large language models (LLMs) in particular, in the functioning of the public administration.

The analysis stresses the risks stemming from ‘inaccurate, biased, or nonsensical’ GenAI outputs and, in particular, that ‘the key principles of public administration such as accountability, transparency, impartiality, or reliability need to be considered thoroughly in the [GenAI] integration process’.

The paper provides a helpful introduction to how LLMs work and their technical limitations. It then maps potential uses in the public administration, assesses the potential impact of their use on the European principles of public sector administration, and then suggests some measures to mitigate the relevant risks.

This analysis is helpful but, in my view, it is already captured by the presumption that LLMs are here to stay and that what regulators can do is just try to minimise their potential negative impacts—which implies accepting that there will remain unaddressed impacts. By referring to general principles of public administration, rather than eg the right to good administration under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the analysis is also unnecessarily lenient.

I find this type of discourse dangerous and troubling because it facilitates the adoption of digital technologies that cannot meet current legal requirements and guarantees of individual rights. This is clear from the paper itself, although the implications of part of the analysis are not sufficiently explored, in my view.

The paper has a final section where it explicitly recognises that, while some risks might be mitigated by technological advancements, other risks are of a more structural nature and cannot be fully corrected despite best efforts. The paper then lists a very worrying panoply of such structural issues (at 16):

  • ‘This is the case for detecting and removing biases in training data and model outputs. Efforts to sanitize datasets can even worsen biases’.

  • ‘Related to biases is the risk of a perpetuation of the status quo. LLMs mirror the values, habits and attitudes that are present in their training data, which does not leave much space for changing or underrepresented societal views. Relying on LLMs that have been trained with previously produced documents in a public administration severely limits the scope for improvement and innovation and risks leaving the public sector even less flexible than it is already perceived to be’.

  • ‘The ‘black box’ issue, where AI models arrive at conclusions or decisions without revealing the process of how they were reached is also primarily structural’.

  • ‘Regulating new technologies will remain a cat-and-mouse game. Acceleration risk (the emergence of a race to deploy new AI as quickly as possible at the expense of safety standards) is also an area of concern’.

  • ‘Finally […] a major structural risk lies in overreliance, which may be bolstered by rapid technological advances. This could lead to a lack of critical thinking skills needed to adequately assess and oversee the model’s output, especially amongst a younger generation entering a workforce where such models are already being used’.

In my view, beyond the paper’s suggestion that the way forward is to maintain human involvement to monitor the way LLMs (mal)function in the public sector, we should be discussing the imposition of a ban on the adoption of LLMs (and other digital technologies) by the public sector unless it can be positively proven that their deployment will not affect individual rights and more diffuse public interests, and that any residual risks are adequately mitigated.

The current state of affairs is unacceptable in that the lack of regulation allows for a quickly accelerating accumulation of digital deployments that generate risks to social and individual rights and goods. The need to reverse this situation underlies my proposal to permission the adoption of digital technologies by the public sector. Unless we take a robust approach to slowing down and carefully considering the implications of public sector digitalisation, we may be undermining public governance in ways that will be very difficult or impossible to undo. It is not too late, but it may be soon.

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-we-...

Free registration open for two events on procurement and artificial intelligence

Registration is now open for two free events on procurement and artificial intelligence (AI).

First, a webinar where I will be participating in discussions on the role of procurement in contributing to the public sector’s acquisition of trustworthy AI, and the associated challenges, from an EU and US perspective.

Second, a public lecture where I will present the findings of my research project on digital technologies and public procurement.

Please scroll down for details and links to registration pages. All welcome!

1. ‘Can Procurement Be Used to Effectively Regulate AI?’ | Free online webinar
30 May 2023 2pm BST / 3pm CET-SAST / 9am EST (90 mins)
Co-organised by University of Bristol Law School and George Washington University Law School.

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) regulation and governance is a global challenge that is starting to generate different responses in the EU, US, and other jurisdictions. Such responses are, however, rather tentative and politically contested. A full regulatory system will take time to crystallise and be fully operational. In the meantime, despite this regulatory gap, the public sector is quickly adopting AI solutions for a wide range of activities and public services.

This process of accelerated AI adoption by the public sector places procurement as the (involuntary) gatekeeper, tasked with ‘AI regulation by contract’, at least for now. The procurement function is expected to design tender procedures and contracts capable of attaining goals of AI regulation (such as trustworthiness, explainability, or compliance with data protection and human and fundamental rights) that are so far eluding more general regulation.

This webinar will provide an opportunity to take a hard look at the likely effectiveness of AI regulation by contract through procurement and its implications for the commercialisation of public governance, focusing on key issues such as:

  • The interaction between tender design, technical standards, and negotiations.

  • The challenges of designing, monitoring, and enforcing contractual clauses capable of delivering effective ‘regulation by contract’ in the AI space.

  • The tension between the commercial value of tailored contractual design and the regulatory value of default clauses and standard terms.

  • The role of procurement disputes and litigation in shaping AI regulation by contract.

  • The alternative regulatory option of establishing mandatory prior approval by an independent regulator of projects involving AI adoption by the public sector.

This webinar will be of interest to those working on or researching the digitalisation of the public sector and AI regulation in general, as the discussion around procurement gatekeeping mirrors the main issues arising from broader trends.

I will have the great opportunity of discussing my research with Aris Georgopoulos (Nottingham), Scott Simpson (Digital Transformation Lead at U.S. Department of Homeland Security), and Liz Chirico (Acquisition Innovation Lead at Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army). Jessica Tillipman (GW Law) will moderate the discussion and Q&A.

Registration: https://law-gwu-edu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_w_V9s_liSiKrLX9N-krrWQ.

2. ‘AI in the public sector: can procurement promote trustworthy AI and avoid commercial capture?’ | Free in-person public lecture
4 July 2023 2pm BST, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building, University of Bristol
Organised by University of Bristol Law School, Centre for Global Law and Innovation

The public sector is quickly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) to manage its interactions with citizens and in the provision of public services – for example, using chatbots in official websites, automated processes and call-centres, or predictive algorithms.

There are inherent high stakes risks to this process of public governance digitalisation, such as bias and discrimination, unethical deployment, data and privacy risks, cyber security risks, or risks of technological debt and dependency on proprietary solutions developed by (big) tech companies.

However, as part of the UK Government’s ‘light touch’ ‘pro-innovation’ approach to digital technology regulation, the adoption of AI in the public sector remains largely unregulated. 

In this public lecture, I will present the findings of my research funded by the British Academy, analysing how, in this deregulatory context, the existing rules on public procurement fall short of protecting the public interest.

An alternative approach is required to create mechanisms of external independent oversight and mandatory standards to embed trustworthy AI requirements and to mitigate against commercial capture in the acquisition of AI solutions. 

Registration: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/can-procurement-promote-trustworthy-ai-and-avoid-commercial-capture-tickets-601212712407.

External oversight and mandatory requirements for public sector digital technology adoption

© Mateo Mulder-Graells (2023).

I thought the time would never come, but the last piece of my book project puzzle is now more or less in place. After finding that procurement is not the right regulatory actor and does not have the best tools of ‘digital regulation by contract’, in this last draft chapter, I explore how to discharge procurement of the assigned digital regulation role to increase the likelihood of effective enforcement of desirable goals of public sector digital regulation.

I argue that this should be done through two inter-related regulatory interventions consisting of developing (1) a regulator tasked with the external oversight of the adoption of digital technologies by the public sector, as well as (2) a suite of mandatory requirements binding both public entities seeking to adopt digital technologies and technology providers, and both in relation to the digital technologies to be adopted by the public sector and the applicable governance framework.

Detailed analysis of these issues would require much more extensive treatment than this draft chapter can offer. The modest goal here is simply to stress the key attributes and functions that each of these two regulatory interventions should have to make a positive contribution to governing the transition towards a new model of public digital governance. In this blog post, I summarise the main arguments.

As ever, I would be most grateful for feedback: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk. Especially as I will now turn my attention to seeing how the different pieces of the puzzle fit together, while I edit the manuscript for submission before end of July 2023.

Institutional deficit and risk of capture

In the absence of an alternative institutional architecture (or while it is put in place), procurement is expected to develop a regulatory gatekeeping role in relation to the adoption of digital technologies by the public sector, which is in turn expected to have norm-setting and market-shaping effects across the economy. This could be seen as a way of bypassing or postponing decisions on regulatory architecture.

However, earlier analysis has shown that the procurement function is not the right institution to which to assign a digital regulation role, as it cannot effectively discharge such a duty. This highlights the existence of an institutional deficit in the process of public sector digitalisation, as well as in relation to digital technology regulation more broadly. An alternative approach to institutional design is required, and it can be delivered through the creation of a notional ‘AI in Public Sector Authority’ (AIPSA).

Earlier analysis has also shown that there are pervasive risks of regulatory capture and commercial determination of the process of public sector digitalisation stemming from reliance on standards and benchmarks created by technology vendors or by bodies heavily influenced by the tech industry. AIPSA could safeguard against such risk through controls over the process of standard adoption. AIPSA could also guard against excessive experimentation with digital technologies by creating robust controls to counteract their policy irresistibility.

Overcoming the institutional deficit through AIPSA

The adoption of digital technologies in the process of public sector digitalisation creates regulatory challenges that require external oversight, as procurement is unable to effectively regulate this process. A particularly relevant issue concerns whether such oversight should be entrusted to a new regulator (broad approach), or whether it would suffice to assign new regulatory tasks to existing regulators (narrow approach).

I submit that the narrow approach is inadequate because it perpetuates regulatory fragmentation and can lead to undesirable spillovers or knock-on effects, whether the new regulatory tasks are assigned to data protection authorities, (quasi)regulators with a ‘sufficiently close’ regulatory remit in relation with information and communications technologies (ICT) (such as eg the Agency for Digital Italy (AgID), or the Dutch Advisory Council on IT assessment (AcICT)), or newly created centres of expertise in algorithmic regulation (eg the French PEReN). Such ‘organic’ or ‘incremental’ approach to institutional development could overshadow important design considerations, as well embed biases due to the institutional drivers of the existing (quasi)regulators.

To avoid these issues, I advocate a broader or more joined up approach in the proposal for AIPSA. AIPSA would be an independent authority with the statutory function of promoting overarching goals of digital regulation, and specifically tasked with regulating the adoption and use of digital technologies by the public sector, whether through in-house development or procurement from technology providers. AIPSA would also absorb regulatory functions in cognate areas, such as the governance of public sector data, and integrate work in areas such as cyber security. It would also serve a coordinating function with the data protection authority.

In the draft chapter, I stress three fundamental aspects of AIPSA’s institutional design: regulatory coherence, independence and expertise. Independence and expertise would be the two most crucial factors. AIPSA would need to be designed in a way that ensured both political and industry independence, with the issue of political independence having particular salience and requiring countervailing accountability mechanisms. Relatedly, the importance of digital capabilities to effectively exercise a digital regulation role cannot be overemphasised. It is not only important in relation to the active aspects of the regulatory role—such as control of standard setting or permissioning or licencing of digital technology use (below)—but also in relation to the passive aspects of the regulatory role and, in particular, in relation to reactive engagement with industry. High levels of digital capability would be essential to allow AIPSA to effectively scrutinise claims from those that sought to influence its operation and decision-making, as well as reduce AIPSA’s dependence on industry-provided information.

safeguard against regulatory capture and policy irresistibility

Regulating the adoption of digital technologies in the process of public sector digitalisation requires establishing the substantive requirements that such technology needs to meet, as well as the governance requirements need to ensure its proper use. AIPSA’s role in setting mandatory requirements for public sector digitalisation would be twofold.

First, through an approval or certification mechanism, it would control the process of standardisation to neutralise risks of regulatory capture and commercial determination. Where no standards were susceptible of approval or certification, AIPSA would develop them.

Second, through a permissioning or licencing process, AIPSA would ensure that decisions on the adoption of digital technologies by the public sector are not driven by ‘policy irresistibility’, that they are supported by clear governance structures and draw on sufficient resources, and that adherence to the goals of digital regulation is sustained throughout the implementation and use of digital technologies by the public sector and subject to proactive transparency requirements.

The draft chapter provides more details on both issues.

If not AIPSA … then clearly not procurement

There can be many objections to the proposals developed in this draft chapter, which would still require further development. However, most of the objections would likely also apply to the use of procurement as a tool of digital regulation. The functions expected of AIPSA closely match those expected of the procurement function under the approach to ‘digital regulation by contract’. Challenges to AIPSA’s ability to discharge such functions would be applicable to any public buyer seeking to achieve the same goals. Similarly, challenges to the independence or need for accountability of AIPSA would be similarly applicable to atomised decision-making by public buyers.

While the proposal is necessarily imperfect, I submit that it would improve upon the emerging status quo and that, in discharging procurement of the digital regulation role, it would make a positive contribution to the governance of the transition to a new model of digital public governance.

The draft chapter is available via SSRN: Albert Sanchez-Graells, ‘Discharging procurement of the digital regulation role: external oversight and mandatory requirements for public sector digital technology adoption’.

Procuring AI without understanding it. Way to go?

The UK’s Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF) has published a report on Transparency in the procurement of algorithmic systems (for short, the ‘AI procurement report’). Some of DRCF’s findings in the AI procurement report are astonishing, and should attract significant attention. The one finding that should definitely not go unnoticed is that, according to DRCF, ‘Buyers can lack the technical expertise to effectively scrutinise the [algorithmic systems] they are procuring, whilst vendors may limit the information they share with buyers’ (at 9). While this is not surprising, the ‘normality’ with which this finding is reported evidences the simple fact that, at least in the UK, it is accepted that the AI field is dominated by technology providers, that all institutional buyers are ‘AI consumers’, and that regulators do not seem to see a need to intervene to rebalance the situation.

The report is not specifically about public procurement of AI, but its content is relevant to assessing the conditions surrounding the acquisition of AI by the public sector. First, the report covers algorithmic systems other than AI—that is, automation based on simpler statistical techniques—but the issues it raises can only be more acute in relation to AI than in relation to simpler algorithmic systems (as the report itself highlights, at 9). Second, the report does not make explicit whether the mix of buyers from which it draws evidence includes public as well as private buyers. However, given the public sector’s digital skills gap, there is no reason to believe that the limited knowledge and asymmetries of information documented in the AI procurement report are less acute for public buyers than private buyers.

Moreover, the AI procurement report goes as far as to suggest that public sector procurement is somewhat in a better position than private sector procurement of AI because there are multiple guidelines focusing on public procurement (notably, the Guidelines for AI procurement). Given the shortcomings in those guidelines (see here for earlier analysis), this can hardly provide any comfort.

The AI procurement report evidences that UK (public and private) buyers are procuring AI they do not understand and cannot adequately monitor. This is extremely worrying. The AI procurement report presents evidence gathered by DRCF in two workshops with 23 vendors and buyers of algorithmic systems in Autumn 2022. The evidence base is qualitative and draws from a limited sample, so it may need to be approached with caution. However, its findings are sufficiently worrying as to require a much more robust policy intervention that the proposals in the recently released White Paper ‘AI regulation: a pro-innovation approach’ (for discussion, see here). In this blog post, I summarise the findings of the AI procurement report I find more problematic and link this evidence to the failing attempt at using public procurement to regulate the acquisition of AI by the public sector in the UK.

Misinformed buyers with limited knowledge and no ability to oversee

In its report, DRCF stresses that ‘some buyers lacked understanding of [algorithmic systems] and could struggle to recognise where an algorithmic process had been integrated into a system they were procuring’, and that ‘[t]his issue may be compounded where vendors fail to note that a solution includes AI or its subset, [machine learning]’ (at 9). The report goes on to stress that ‘[w]here buyers have insufficient information about the development or testing of an [algorithmic system], there is a risk that buyers could be deploying an [algorithmic system] that is unlawful or unethical. This risk is particularly acute for high-risk applications of [algorithmic systems], for example where an [algorithmic system] determines a person's access to employment or housing or where the application is in a highly regulated sector such as finance’ (at 10). Needless to say, however, this applies to a much larger set of public sector areas of activity, and the problems are not limited to high-risk applications involving individual rights, but also to those that involve high stakes from a public governance perspective.

Similarly, DRCF stresses that while ‘vendors use a range of performance metrics and testing methods … without appropriate technical expertise or scrutiny, these metrics may give buyers an incomplete picture of the effectiveness of an [algorithmic system]’; ‘vendors [can] share performance metrics that overstate the effectiveness of their [algorithmic system], whilst omitting other metrics which indicate lower effectiveness in other areas. Some vendors raised concerns that their competitors choose the most favourable (i.e., the highest) performance metric to win procurement contracts‘, while ‘not all buyers may have the technical knowledge to understand which performance metrics are most relevant to their procurement decision’ (at 10). This demolishes any hope that buyers facing this type of knowledge gap and asymmetry of information can compare algorithmic systems in a meaningful way.

The issue is further compounded by the lack of standards and metrics. The report stresses this issue: ‘common or standard metrics do not yet exist within industry for the evaluation of [algorithmic systems]. For vendors, this can make it more challenging to provide useful information, and for buyers, this lack of consistency can make it difficult to compare different [algorithmic systems]. Buyers also told us that they would find more detail on the performance of the [algorithmic system] being procured helpful - including across a range of metrics. The development of more consistent performance metrics could also help regulators to better understand how accurate an [algorithmic system] is in a specific context’ (at 11).

Finally, the report also stresses that vendors have every incentive to withhold information from buyers, both because ‘sharing too much technical detail or knowledge could allow buyers to re-develop their product’ and because ‘they remain concerned about revealing commercially sensitive information to buyers’ (at 10). In that context, given the limited knowledge and understanding documented above, it can even be difficult for a buyer to ascertain which information it has not been given.

The DRCF AI procurement report then focuses on mechanisms that could alleviate some of the issues it identifies, such as standardisation, certification and audit mechanisms, as well as AI transparency registers. However, these mechanisms raise significant questions, not only in relation to their practical implementation, but also regarding the continued reliance on the AI industry (and thus, AI vendors) for the development of some of its foundational elements—and crucially, standards and metrics. To a large extent, the AI industry would be setting the benchmark against which their processes, practices and performance is to be measured. Even if a third party is to carry out such benchmarking or compliance analysis in the context of AI audits, the cards can already be stacked against buyers.

Not the way forward for the public sector (in the UK)

The DRCF AI procurement report should give pause to anyone hoping that (public) buyers can drive the process of development and adoption of these technologies. The AI procurement report clearly evidences that buyers with knowledge disadvantages and information asymmetries are at the merci of technology providers—and/or third-party certifiers (in the future). The evidence in the report clearly suggests that this a process driven by technology providers and, more worryingly, that (most) buyers are in no position to critically assess and discipline vendor behaviour.

The question arises why would any buyer acquire and deploy a technology it does not understand and is in no position to adequately assess. But the hype and hard-selling surrounding AI, coupled with its abstract potential to generate significant administrative and operational advantages seem to be too hard to resist, both for private sector entities seeking to gain an edge (or at least not lag behind competitors) in their markets, and by public sector entities faced with AI’s policy irresistibility.

In the public procurement context, the insights from DRCF’s AI procurement report stress that the fundamental imbalance between buyers and vendors of digital technologies undermines the regulatory role that public procurement is expected to play. Only a buyer that had equal or superior technical ability and that managed to force full disclosure of the relevant information from the technology provider would be in a position to (try to) dictate the terms of the acquisition and deployment of the technology, including through the critical assessment and, if needed, modification of emerging technical standards that could well fall short of the public interest embedded in the process of public sector digitalisation—though it would face significant limitations.

This is an ideal to which most public buyers cannot aspire. In fact, in the UK, the position is the reverse and the current approach is to try to facilitate experimentation with digital technologies for public buyers with no knowledge or digital capability whatsoever—see the Crown Commercial Service’s Artificial Intelligence Dynamic Purchasing System (CCS AI DPS), explicitly targeting inexperienced and digitally novice, to put it politely, public buyers by stressing that ‘If you are new to AI you will be able to procure services through a discovery phase, to get an understanding of AI and how it can benefit your organisation’.

Given the evidence in the DRCF AI report, this approach can only inflate the number of public sector buyers at the merci of technology providers. Especially because, while the CCS AI DPS tries to address some issues, such as ethical risks (though the effectiveness of this can also be queried), it makes clear that ‘quality, price and cultural fit (including social value) can be assessed based on individual customer requirements’. With ‘AI quality’ capturing all the problematic issues mentioned above (and, notably, AI performance), the CCS AI DPS is highly problematic.

If nothing else, the DRCF AI procurement report gives further credence to the need to change regulatory tack. Most importantly, the report evidences that there is a very real risk that public sector entities are currently buying AI they do not understand and are in no position to effectively control post-deployment. This risk needs to be addressed if the UK public is to trust the accelerating process of public sector digitalisation. As formulated elsewhere, this calls for a series of policy and regulatory interventions.

Ensuring that the adoption of AI in the public sector operates in the public interest and for the benefit of all citizens requires new legislation supported by a new mechanism of external oversight and enforcement. New legislation is required to impose specific minimum requirements of eg data governance and algorithmic impact assessment and related transparency across the public sector, to address the issue of lack of standards and metrics but without reliance on their development by and within the AI industry. Primary legislation would need to be developed by statutory guidance of a much more detailed and actionable nature than eg the current Guidelines for AI procurement. These developed requirements can then be embedded into public contracts by reference, and thus protect public buyers from vendor standard cherry-picking, as well as providing a clear benchmark against which to assess tenders.

Legislation would also be necessary to create an independent authority—eg an ‘AI in the Public Sector Authority’ (AIPSA)—with powers to enforce those minimum requirements across the public sector. AIPSA is necessary, as oversight of the use of AI in the public sector does not currently fall within the scope of any specific sectoral regulator and the general regulators (such as the Information Commissioner’s Office) lack procurement-specific knowledge. Moreover, units within Cabinet Office (such as the Office for AI or the Central Digital and Data Office) lack the required independence. The primary role of AIPSA would be to constrain the process of adoption of AI by the public sector, especially where the public buyer lacks digital capacity and is thus at risk of capture or overpowering by technological vendors.

In that regard, and until sufficient in-house capability is built to ensure adequate understanding of the technologies being procured (especially in the case of complex AI), and adequate ability to manage digital procurement governance requirements independently, AIPSA would have to approve all projects to develop, procure and deploy AI in the public sector to ensure that they meet the required legislative safeguards in terms of data governance, impact assessment, etc. This approach could progressively be relaxed through eg block exemption mechanisms, once there is sufficiently detailed understanding and guidance on specific AI use cases, and/or in relation to public sector entities that could demonstrate sufficient in-house capability, eg through a mechanism of independent certification in accordance with benchmarks set by AIPSA, or certification by AIPSA itself.

In parallel, it would also be necessary for the Government to develop a clear and sustainably funded strategy to build in-house capability in the public sector, including clear policies on the minimisation of expenditure directed at the engagement of external consultants and the development of guidance on how to ensure the capture and retention of the knowledge developed within outsourced projects (including, but not only, through detailed technical documentation).

None of this features in the recently released White Paper ‘AI regulation: a pro-innovation approach’. However, DRCF’s AI procurement report further evidences that these policy interventions are necessary. Else, the UK will be a jurisdiction where the public sector acquires and deploys technology it does not understand and cannot control. Surely, this is not the way to go.

UK's 'pro-innovation approach' to AI regulation won't do, particularly for public sector digitalisation

Regulating artificial intelligence (AI) has become the challenge of the time. This is a crucial area of regulatory development and there are increasing calls—including from those driving the development of AI—for robust regulatory and governance systems. In this context, more details have now emerged on the UK’s approach to AI regulation.

Swimming against the tide, and seeking to diverge from the EU’s regulatory agenda and the EU AI Act, the UK announced a light-touch ‘pro-innovation approach’ in its July 2022 AI regulation policy paper. In March 2023, the same approach was supported by a Report of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (the ‘GCSA Report’), and is now further developed in the White Paper ‘AI regulation: a pro-innovation approach’ (the ‘AI WP’). The UK Government has launched a public consultation that will run until 21 June 2023.

Given the relevance of the issue, it can be expected that the public consultation will attract a large volume of submissions, and that the ‘pro-innovation approach’ will be heavily criticised. Indeed, there is an on-going preparatory Parliamentary Inquiry on the Governance of AI that has already collected a wealth of evidence exploring the pros and cons of the regulatory approach outlined there. Moreover, initial reactions eg by the Public Law Project, the Ada Lovelace Institute, or the Royal Statistical Society have been (to different degrees) critical of the lack of regulatory ambition in the AI WP—while, as could be expected, think tanks closely linked to the development of the policy, such as the Alan Turing Institute, have expressed more positive views.

Whether the regulatory approach will shift as a result of the expected pushback is unclear. However, given that the AI WP follows the same deregulatory approach first suggested in 2018 and is strongly politically/policy entrenched—for the UK Government has self-assessed this approach as ‘world leading’ and claims it will ‘turbocharge economic growth’—it is doubtful that much will necessarily change as a result of the public consultation.

That does not mean we should not engage with the public consultation, but the opposite. In the face of the UK Government’s dereliction of duty, or lack of ideas, it is more important than ever that there is a robust pushback against the deregulatory approach being pursued. Especially in the context of public sector digitalisation and the adoption of AI by the public administration and in the provision of public services, where the Government (unsurprisingly) is unwilling to create regulatory safeguards to protect citizens from its own action.

In this blogpost, I sketch my main areas of concern with the ‘pro-innovation approach’ in the GCSA Report and AI WP, which I will further develop for submission to the public consultation, building on earlier views. Feedback and comments would be gratefully received: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.

The ‘pro-innovation approach’ in the GCSA Report — squaring the circle?

In addition to proposals on the intellectual property (IP) regulation of generative AI, the opening up of public sector data, transport-related, or cyber security interventions, the GCSA Report focuses on ‘core’ regulatory and governance issues. The report stresses that regulatory fragmentation is one of the key challenges, as is the difficulty for the public sector in ‘attracting and retaining individuals with relevant skills and talent in a competitive environment with the private sector, especially those with expertise in AI, data analytics, and responsible data governance‘ (at 5). The report also further hints at the need to boost public sector digital capabilities by stressing that ‘the government and regulators should rapidly build capability and know-how to enable them to positively shape regulatory frameworks at the right time‘ (at 13).

Although the rationale is not very clearly stated, to bridge regulatory fragmentation and facilitate the pooling of digital capabilities from across existing regulators, the report makes a central proposal to create a multi-regulator AI sandbox (at 6-8). The report suggests that it could be convened by the Digital Regulatory Cooperation Forum (DRCF)—which brings together four key regulators (the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), Office of Communications (Ofcom), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA))—and that DRCF should look at ways of ‘bringing in other relevant regulators to encourage join up’ (at 7).

The report recommends that the AI sandbox should operate on the basis of a ‘commitment from the participant regulators to make joined-up decisions on regulations or licences at the end of each sandbox process and a clear feedback loop to inform the design or reform of regulatory frameworks based on the insights gathered. Regulators should also collaborate with standards bodies to consider where standards could act as an alternative or underpin outcome-focused regulation’ (at 7).

Therefore, the AI sandbox would not only be multi-regulator, but also encompass (in some way) standard-setting bodies (presumably UK ones only, though), without issues of public-private interaction in decision-making implying the exercise of regulatory public powers, or issues around regulatory capture and risks of commercial determination, being considered at all. The report in general is extremely industry-orientated, eg in stressing in relation to the overarching pacing problem that ‘for emerging digital technologies, the industry view is clear: there is a greater risk from regulating too early’ (at 5), without this being in any way balanced with clear (non-industry) views that the biggest risk is actually in regulating too late and that we are collectively frog-boiling into a ‘runaway AI’ fiasco.

Moreover, confusingly, despite the fact that the sandbox would be hosted by DRCF (of which the ICO is a leading member), the GCSA Report indicates that the AI sandbox ‘could link closely with the ICO sandbox on personal data applications’ (at 8). The fact that the report is itself unclear as to whether eg AI applications with data protection implications should be subjected to one or two sandboxes, or the extent to which the general AI sandbox would need to be integrated with sectoral sandboxes for non-AI regulatory experimentation, already indicates the complexity and dubious practical viability of the suggested approach.

It is also unclear why multiple sector regulators should be involved in any given iteration of a single AI sandbox where there may be no projects within their regulatory remit and expertise. The alternative approach of having an open or rolling AI sandbox mechanism led by a single AI authority, which would then draw expertise and work in collaboration with the relevant sector regulator as appropriate on a per-project basis, seems preferable. While some DRCF members could be expected to have to participate in a majority of sandbox projects (eg CMA and ICO), others would probably have a much less constant presence (eg Ofcom, or certainly the FCA).

Remarkably, despite this recognition of the functional need for a centralised regulatory approach and a single point of contact (primarily for industry’s convenience), the GCSA Report implicitly supports the 2022 AI regulation policy paper’s approach to not creating an overarching cross-sectoral AI regulator. The GCSA Report tries to create a ‘non-institutionalised centralised regulatory function’, nested under DRCF. In practice, however, implementing the recommendation for a single AI sandbox would create the need for the further development of the governance structures of the DRCF (especially if it was to grow by including many other sectoral regulators), or whichever institution ‘hosted it’, or else risk creating a non-institutional AI regulator with the related difficulties in ensuring accountability. This would add a layer of deregulation to the deregulatory effect that the sandbox itself creates (see eg Ranchordas (2021)).

The GCSA Report seems to try to square the circle of regulatory fragmentation by relying on cooperation as a centralising regulatory device, but it does this solely for the industry’s benefit and convenience, without paying any consideration to the future effectiveness of the regulatory framework. This is hard to understand, given the report’s identification of conflicting regulatory constraints, or in its terminology ‘incentives’: ‘The rewards for regulators to take risks and authorise new and innovative products and applications are not clear-cut, and regulators report that they can struggle to trade off the different objectives covered by their mandates. This can include delivery against safety, competition objectives, or consumer and environmental protection, and can lead to regulator behaviour and decisions that prioritise further minimising risk over supporting innovation and investment. There needs to be an appropriate balance between the assessment of risk and benefit’ (at 5).

This not only frames risk-minimisation as a negative regulatory outcome (and further feeds into the narrative that precautionary regulatory approaches are somehow not legitimate because they run against industry goals—which deserves strong pushback, see eg Kaminski (2022)), but also shows a main gap in the report’s proposal for the single AI sandbox. If each regulator has conflicting constraints, what evidence (if any) is there that collaborative decision-making will reduce, rather than exacerbate, such regulatory clashes? Are decisions meant to be arrived at by majority voting or in any other way expected to deactivate (some or most) regulatory requirements in view of (perceived) gains in relation to other regulatory goals? Why has there been no consideration of eg the problems encountered by concurrency mechanisms in the application of sectoral and competition rules (see eg Dunne (2014), (2020) and (2021)), as an obvious and immediate precedent of the same type of regulatory coordination problems?

The GCSA report also seems to assume that collaboration through the AI sandbox would be resource neutral for participating regulators, whereas it seems reasonable to presume that this additional layer of regulation (even if not institutionalised) would require further resources. And, in any case, there does not seem to be much consideration as to the viability of asking of resource-strapped regulators to create an AI sandbox where they can (easily) be out-skilled and over-powered by industry participants.

In my view, the GCSA Report already points at significant weaknesses in the resistance to creating any new authorities, despite the obvious functional need for centralised regulation, which is one of the main weaknesses, or the single biggest weakness, in the AI WP—as well as in relation to a lack of strategic planning around public sector digital capabilities, despite well-recognised challenges (see eg Committee of Public Accounts (2021)).

The ‘pro-innovation approach’ in the AI WP — a regulatory blackhole, privatisation of ai regulation, or both

The AI WP envisages an ‘innovative approach to AI regulation [that] uses a principles-based framework for regulators to interpret and apply to AI within their remits’ (para 36). It expects the framework to ‘pro-innovation, proportionate, trustworthy, adaptable, clear and collaborative’ (para 37). As will become clear, however, such ‘innovative approach’ solely amounts to the formulation of high-level, broad, open-textured and incommensurable principles to inform a soft law push to the development of regulatory practices aligned with such principles in a highly fragmented and incomplete regulatory landscape.

The regulatory framework would be built on four planks (para 38): [i] an AI definition (paras 39-42); [ii] a context-specific approach (ie a ‘used-based’ approach, rather than a ‘technology-led’ approach, see paras 45-47); [iii] a set of cross-sectoral principles to guide regulator responses to AI risks and opportunities (paras 48-54); and [iv] new central functions to support regulators to deliver the AI regulatory framework (paras 70-73). In reality, though, there will be only two ‘pillars’ of the regulatory framework and they do not involve any new institutions or rules. The AI WP vision thus largely seems to be that AI can be regulated in the UK in a world-leading manner without doing anything much at all.

AI Definition

The UK’s definition of AI will trigger substantive discussions, especially as it seeks to build it around ‘the two characteristics that generate the need for a bespoke regulatory response’: ‘adaptivity’ and ‘autonomy’ (para 39). Discussing the definitional issue is beyond the scope of this post but, on the specific identification of the ‘autonomy’ of AI, it is worth highlighting that this is an arguably flawed regulatory approach to AI (see Soh (2023)).

No new institutions

The AI WP makes clear that the UK Government has no plans to create any new AI regulator, either with a cross-sectoral (eg general AI authority) or sectoral remit (eg an ‘AI in the public sector authority’, as I advocate for). The Ministerial Foreword to the AI WP already stresses that ‘[t]o ensure our regulatory framework is effective, we will leverage the expertise of our world class regulators. They understand the risks in their sectors and are best placed to take a proportionate approach to regulating AI’ (at p2). The AI WP further stresses that ‘[c]reating a new AI-specific, cross-sector regulator would introduce complexity and confusion, undermining and likely conflicting with the work of our existing expert regulators’ (para 47). This however seems to presume that a new cross-sector AI regulator would be unable to coordinate with existing regulators, despite the institutional architecture of the regulatory framework foreseen in the AI WP entirely relying on inter-regulator collaboration (!).

No new rules

There will also not be new legislation underpinning regulatory activity, although the Government claims that the WP AI, ‘alongside empowering regulators to take a lead, [is] also setting expectations‘ (at p3). The AI WP claims to develop a regulatory framework underpinned by five principles to guide and inform the responsible development and use of AI in all sectors of the economy: [i] Safety, security and robustness; [ii] Appropriate transparency and explainability; [iii] Fairness; [iv] Accountability and governance; and [v] Contestability and redress (para 10). However, they will not be put on a statutory footing (initially); ‘the principles will be issued on a non-statutory basis and implemented by existing regulators’ (para 11). While there is some detail on the intended meaning of these principles (see para 52 and Annex A), the principles necessarily lack precision and, worse, there is a conflation of the principles with other (existing) regulatory requirements.

For example, it is surprising that the AI WP describes fairness as implying that ‘AI systems should (sic) not undermine the legal rights of individuals or organisations, discriminate unfairly against individuals or create unfair market outcomes‘ (emphasis added), and stresses the expectation ‘that regulators’ interpretations of fairness will include consideration of compliance with relevant law and regulation’ (para 52). This encapsulates the risks that principles-based AI regulation ends up eroding compliance with and enforcement of current statutory obligations. A principle of AI fairness cannot modify or exclude existing legal obligations, and it should not risk doing so either.

Moreover, the AI WP suggests that, even if the principles are supported by a statutory duty for regulators to have regard to them, ‘while the duty to have due regard would require regulators to demonstrate that they had taken account of the principles, it may be the case that not every regulator will need to introduce measures to implement every principle’ (para 58). This conflates two issues. On the one hand, the need for activity subjected to regulatory supervision to comply with all principles and, on the other, the need for a regulator to take corrective action in relation to any of the principles. It should be clear that regulators have a duty to ensure that all principles are complied with in their regulatory remit, which does not seem to entirely or clearly follow from the weaker duty to have due regard to the principles.

perpetuating regulatory gaps, in particular regarding public sector digitalisation

As a consequence of the lack of creation of new regulators and the absence of new legislation, it is unclear whether the ‘regulatory strategy’ in the AI WP will have any real world effects within existing regulatory frameworks, especially as the most ambitious intervention is to create ‘a statutory duty on regulators requiring them to have due regard to the principles’ (para 12)—but the Government may decide not to introduce it if ‘monitoring of the effectiveness of the initial, non-statutory framework suggests that a statutory duty is unnecessary‘ (para 59).

However, what is already clear that there is no new AI regulation in the horizon despite the fact that the AI WP recognises that ‘some AI risks arise across, or in the gaps between, existing regulatory remits‘ (para 27), that ‘there may be AI-related risks that do not clearly fall within the remits of the UK’s existing regulators’ (para 64), and the obvious and worrying existence of high risks to fundamental rights and values (para 4 and paras 22-25). The AI WP is naïve, to say the least, in setting out that ‘[w]here prioritised risks fall within a gap in the legal landscape, regulators will need to collaborate with government to identify potential actions. This may include identifying iterations to the framework such as changes to regulators’ remits, updates to the Regulators’ Code, or additional legislative intervention’ (para 65).

Hoping that such risk identification and gap analysis will take place without assigning specific responsibility for it—and seeking to exempt the Government from such responsibility—seems a bit too much to ask. In fact, this is at odds with the graphic depiction of how the AI WP expects the system to operate. As noted in (1) in the graph below, it is clear that the identification of risks that are cross-cutting or new (unregulated) risks that warrant intervention is assigned to a ‘central risk function’ (more below), not the regulators. Importantly, the AI WP indicates that such central function ‘will be provided from within government’ (para 15 and below). Which then raises two questions: (a) who will have the responsibility to proactively screen for such risks, if anyone, and (b) how has the Government not already taken action to close the gaps it recognises exists in the current legal landscape?

AI WP Figure 2: Central risks function activities.

This perpetuates the current regulatory gaps, in particular in sectors without a regulator or with regulators with very narrow mandates—such as the public sector and, to a large extent, public services. Importantly, this approach does not create any prohibition of impermissible AI uses, nor sets any (workable) set of minimum requirements for the deployment of AI in high-risk uses, specially in the public sector. The contrast with the EU AI Act could not be starker and, in this aspect in particular, UK citizens should be very worried that the UK Government is not committing to any safeguards in the way technology can be used in eg determining access to public services, or by the law enforcement and judicial system. More generally, it is very worrying that the AI WP does not foresee any safeguards in relation to the quickly accelerating digitalisation of the public sector.

Loose central coordination leading to ai regulation privatisation

Remarkably, and in a similar functional disconnect as that of the GCSA Report (above), the decision not to create any new regulator/s (para 15) is taken in the same breath as the AI WP recognises that the small coordination layer within the regulatory architecture proposed in the 2022 AI regulation policy paper (ie, largely, the approach underpinning the DRCF) has been heavily criticised (para 13). The AI WP recognises that ‘the DRCF was not created to support the delivery of all the functions we have identified or the implementation of our proposed regulatory framework for AI’ (para 74).

The AI WP also stresses how ‘[w]hile some regulators already work together to ensure regulatory coherence for AI through formal networks like the AI and digital regulations service in the health sector and the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (DRCF), other regulators have limited capacity and access to AI expertise. This creates the risk of inconsistent enforcement across regulators. There is also a risk that some regulators could begin to dominate and interpret the scope of their remit or role more broadly than may have been intended in order to fill perceived gaps in a way that increases incoherence and uncertainty’ (para 29), which points at a strong functional need for a centralised approach to AI regulation.

To try and mitigate those regulatory risks and shortcomings, the AI WP proposes the creation of ‘a number of central support functions’, such as [i} a central monitoring function of overall regulatory framework’s effectiveness and the implementation of the principles; [ii] central risk monitoring and assessment; [iii] horizon scanning; [iv] supporting testbeds and sandboxes; [v] advocacy, education and awareness-raising initiatives; or [vi] promoting interoperability with international regulatory frameworks (para 14, see also para 73). Cryptically, the AI WP indicates that ‘central support functions will initially be provided from within government but will leverage existing activities and expertise from across the broader economy’ (para 15). Quite how this can be effectively done outwith a clearly defined, adequately resourced and durable institutional framework is anybody’s guess. In fact, the AI WP recognises that this approach ‘needs to evolve’ and that Government needs to understand how ‘existing regulatory forums could be expanded to include the full range of regulators‘, what ‘additional expertise government may need’, and the ‘most effective way to convene input from across industry and consumers to ensure a broad range of opinions‘ (para 77).

While the creation of a regulator seems a rather obvious answer to all these questions, the AI WP has rejected it in unequivocal terms. Is the AI WP a U-turn waiting to happen? Is the mention that ‘[a]s we enter a new phase we will review the role of the AI Council and consider how best to engage expertise to support the implementation of the regulatory framework’ (para 78) a placeholder for an imminent project to rejig the AI Council and turn it into an AI regulator? What is the place and role of the Office for AI and the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation in all this?

Moreover, the AI WP indicates that the ‘proposed framework is aligned with, and supplemented by, a variety of tools for trustworthy AI, such as assurance techniques, voluntary guidance and technical standards. Government will promote the use of such tools’ (para 16). Relatedly, the AI WP relies on those mechanisms to avoid addressing issues of accountability across AI life cycle, indicating that ‘[t]ools for trustworthy AI like assurance techniques and technical standards can support supply chain risk management. These tools can also drive the uptake and adoption of AI by building justified trust in these systems, giving users confidence that key AI-related risks have been identified, addressed and mitigated across the supply chain’ (para 84). Those tools are discussed in much more detail in part 4 of the AI WP (paras 106 ff). Annex A also creates a backdoor for technical standards to directly become the operationalisation of the general principles on which the regulatory framework is based, by explicitly identifying standards regulators may want to consider ‘to clarify regulatory guidance and support the implementation of risk treatment measures’.

This approach to the offloading of tricky regulatory issues to the emergence of private-sector led standards is simply an exercise in the transfer of regulatory power to those setting such standards, guidance and assurance techniques and, ultimately, a privatisation of AI regulation.

A different approach to sandboxes and testbeds?

The Government will take forward the GCSA recommendation to establish a regulatory sandbox for AI, which ‘will bring together regulators to support innovators directly and help them get their products to market. The sandbox will also enable us to understand how regulation interacts with new technologies and refine this interaction where necessary’ (p2). This thus is bound to hardwire some of the issues mentioned above in relation to the GCSA proposal, as well as being reflective of the general pro-industry approach of the AI WP, which is obvious in the framing that the regulators are expected to ‘support innovators directly and help them get their products to market’. Industrial policy seems to be shoehorned and mainstreamed across all areas of regulatory activity, at least in relation to AI (but it can then easily bleed into non-AI-related regulatory activities).

While the AI WP indicates the commitment to implement the AI sandbox recommended in the GCSA Report, it is by no means clear that the implementation will be in the way proposed in the report (ie a multi-regulator sandbox nested under DRCF, with an expectation that it would develop a crucial coordination and regulatory centralisation effect). The AI WP indicates that the Government still has to explore ‘what service focus would be most useful to industry’ in relation to AI sandboxes (para 96), but it sets out the intention to ‘focus an initial pilot on a single sector, multiple regulator sandbox’ (para 97), which diverges from the approach in the GCSA Report, which would be that of a sandbox for ‘multiple sectors, multiple regulators’. While the public consultation intends to gather feedback on which industry sector is the most appropriate, I would bet that the financial services sector will be chosen and that the ‘regulatory innovation’ will simply result in some closer cooperation between the ICO and FCA.

Regulator capabilities — ai regulation on a shoestring?

The AI WP turns to the issue of regulator capabilities and stresses that ‘While our approach does not currently involve or anticipate extending any regulator’s remit, regulating AI uses effectively will require many of our regulators to acquire new skills and expertise’ (para 102), and that the Government has ‘identified potential capability gaps among many, but not all, regulators’ (para 103).

To try to (start to) address this fundamental issue in the context of a devolved and decentralised regulatory framework, the AI WP indicates that the Government will explore, for example, whether it is ‘appropriate to establish a common pool of expertise that could establish best practice for supporting innovation through regulatory approaches and make it easier for regulators to work with each other on common issues. An alternative approach would be to explore and facilitate collaborative initiatives between regulators – including, where appropriate, further supporting existing initiatives such as the DRCF – to share skills and expertise’ (para 105).

While the creation of ‘common regulatory capacity’ has been advocated by the Alan Turing Institute, and while this (or inter-regulator secondments, for example) could be a short term fix, it seems that this tries to address the obvious challenge of adequately resourcing regulatory bodies without a medium and long-term strategy to build up the digital capability of the public sector, and to perpetuate the current approach to AI regulation on a shoestring. The governance and organisational implications arising from the creation of common pool of expertise need careful consideration, in particular as some of the likely dysfunctionalities are only marginally smaller than current over-reliance on external consultants, or the ‘salami-slicing’ approach to regulatory and policy interventions that seems to bleed from the ’agile’ management of technological projects into the realm of regulatory activity, which however requires institutional memory and the embedding of knowledge and expertise.