Research conducted by the ICO, a public body, shows that over 50 per cent of people are concerned about machines making complex automated decisions about them.

It also found that the majority of people stated that in contexts where humans would usually provide an explanation, explanations of AI decisions should be similar to human explanations.

The ICO has now published its first draft regulatory guidance into the use of AI, which will see companies being forced to adhere to GDPR standards when considering AI implementations.

The four principles are:

• Transparency: explaining the decision-making process taken by AI.
• Accountability: ensuring appropriate oversight of AI decision systems.
• Context: there is no one-size-fits-all approach to explaining AI-assisted decisions.
• Reflect on impacts: explaining the ethical purposes and objectives of an AI project at the initial stages of formulating the problem.

“The potential for AI is huge, but its implementation is often complex, which makes it difficult for people to understand how it works,” said Simon McDougall, the ICO’s executive director of technology and innovation.

“When people don’t understand a technology, it can lead to doubt, uncertainty and mistrust.”

Ministers published the AI Sector Deal, a joint venture between government and industry, in 2018 to try to push the UK to the forefront of emerging technologies, such as AI.

The ICO said it will consult on its guidance until 24 January 2019 and McDougall encouraged industry experts to respond to its draft before then.

“The decisions made using AI need to be properly understood by the people they impact,” he said. “This is no easy feat and involves navigating the ethical and legal pitfalls around the decision-making process built in to AI systems.”

The ICO said that “real-world applicability” was central to the new guidance and encouraged feedback from firms that are keen to develop upon their use of AI.

Last week, the Indonesian Government announced controversial plans to replace two ranks of public servants with AI in a bid to cut red tape.

Research conducted by the ICO, a public body, shows that over 50 per cent of people are concerned about machines making complex automated decisions about them.

It also found that the majority of people stated that in contexts where humans would usually provide an explanation, explanations of AI decisions should be similar to human explanations.

The ICO has now published its first draft regulatory guidance into the use of AI, which will see companies being forced to adhere to GDPR standards when considering AI implementations.

The four principles are:

• Transparency: explaining the decision-making process taken by AI.
• Accountability: ensuring appropriate oversight of AI decision systems.
• Context: there is no one-size-fits-all approach to explaining AI-assisted decisions.
• Reflect on impacts: explaining the ethical purposes and objectives of an AI project at the initial stages of formulating the problem.

“The potential for AI is huge, but its implementation is often complex, which makes it difficult for people to understand how it works,” said Simon McDougall, the ICO’s executive director of technology and innovation.

“When people don’t understand a technology, it can lead to doubt, uncertainty and mistrust.”

Ministers published the AI Sector Deal, a joint venture between government and industry, in 2018 to try to push the UK to the forefront of emerging technologies, such as AI.

The ICO said it will consult on its guidance until 24 January 2019 and McDougall encouraged industry experts to respond to its draft before then.

“The decisions made using AI need to be properly understood by the people they impact,” he said. “This is no easy feat and involves navigating the ethical and legal pitfalls around the decision-making process built in to AI systems.”

The ICO said that “real-world applicability” was central to the new guidance and encouraged feedback from firms that are keen to develop upon their use of AI.

Last week, the Indonesian Government announced controversial plans to replace two ranks of public servants with AI in a bid to cut red tape.