skip to main content
10.1145/3419249.3420106acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Systematic Assessment of National Artificial Intelligence Policies: Perspectives from the Nordics and Beyond

Published:26 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Echoing the evolving interest and impact of artificial intelligence on society, governments are increasingly looking for ways to strategically position themselves as both innovators and regulators in this new domain. One of the most explicit and accessible ways in which governments outline these plans is through national strategy and policy documents. We follow a systematic search strategy to identify national AI policy documents across twenty-five countries. Through an analysis of these documents, including topic modelling, clustering, and reverse topic-search, we provide an overview of the topics discussed in national AI policies and contrast the differences between countries. Furthermore, we analyse the frequency of eleven ethical principles across our corpus. Our paper outlines implications of the differences between geographical and cultural clusters in relation to the future development of artificial intelligence applications.

References

  1. Ashraf Abdul, Jo Vermeulen, Danding Wang, Brian Y. Lim, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2018. Trends and Trajectories for Explainable, Accountable and Intelligible Systems: An HCI Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 582, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174156Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. ACM U.S. Public Policy Council and ACM Europe Policy Committee. 2017. Statement on Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability. Commun. ACM (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richard J. Adams, Palie Smart, and Anne Sigismund Huff. 2017. Shades of Grey: Guidelines for Working with the Grey Literature in Systematic Reviews for Management and Organizational Studies. International Journal of Management Reviews 19, 4 (2017), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Andy Alorwu, Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Jonas Oppenlaender, Miguel Bordallo López, Mahalakshmy Seetharaman, and Simo Hosio. 2020. Crowdsourcing sensitive data using public displays—opportunities, challenges, and considerations. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing(2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-020-01375-6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. James Atwood, Yoni Halpern, Pallavi Baljekar, Eric Breck, D. Sculley, Pavel Ostyakov, Sergey I. Nikolenko, Igor Ivanov, Roman Solovyev, Weimin Wang, and Miha Skalic. 2020. The Inclusive Images Competition. In The NeurIPS ’18 Competition, Sergio Escalera and Ralf Herbrich (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 155–186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Richard Kim, Jonathan Schulz, Joseph Henrich, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2018. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563, 7729 (2018), 59. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research 3, Jan (2003), 993–1022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. E. Cambria, Y. Song, H. Wang, and N. Howard. 2014. Semantic Multidimensional Scaling for Open-Domain Sentiment Analysis. IEEE Intelligent Systems 29, 2 (2014), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2012.118Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Daniel Cer, Yinfei Yang, Sheng-yi Kong, Nan Hua, Nicole Limtiaco, Rhomni St. John, Noah Constant, Mario Guajardo-Cespedes, Steve Yuan, Chris Tar, Brian Strope, and Ray Kurzweil. 2018. Universal Sentence Encoder for English. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations(EMNLP ’18). 169–174. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-2029Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. CIFAR and Brookfield Institute for Innovation + Entrepreneurship. 2019. Rebooting Regulation: Exploring the Future of AI Policy in Canada. https://brookfieldinstitute.ca/report/rebooting-regulation-exploring-the-future-of-ai-policy-in-canada/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission. 2020. National Strategies - Knowledge for policy. https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/ai-watch/national-strategies_en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Denmarks Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs. 2019. National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. https://en.digst.dk/policy-and-strategy/denmark-s-national-strategy-for-artificial-intelligence/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lan Du, Wray Buntine, and Huidong Jin. 2010. A segmented topic model based on the two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet process. Machine Learning 81, 1 (2010), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-010-5197-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. European Commission. 2018. Communication from the European Commission – Artificial Intelligence for Europe no 2018/137. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:237:FIN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission. 2020. On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust. Technical Report. 27 pages. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/white-paper-artificial-intelligence-european-approach-excellence-and-trust_enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Finland’s Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. 2019. Leading the way into the era of artificial intelligence : Final report of Finland’s Artificial Intelligence Programme 2019. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-327-437-2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development. Year unknown. AI initiatives worldwide. http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/initiatives-worldwide/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Foundation for Science and Technology. 2019. AI Portugal 2030. https://www.incode2030.gov.pt/en/ai-portugal-2030.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Batya Friedman, Kristina Hook, Brian Gill, Lina Eidmar, Catherine Sallmander Prien, and Rachel Severson. 2008. Personlig Integritet: A Comparative Study of Perceptions of Privacy in Public Places in Sweden and the United States. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges(NordiCHI ’08). 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1145/1463160.1463176Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Michael Greenacre. 2017. Correspondence analysis in practice. CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nina Grgić-Hlača, Elissa M. Redmiles, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2018. Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference(Lyon, France) (WWW ‘18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 903–912. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186138Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Shathel Haddad, Joanna McGrenere, and Claudia Jacova. 2014. Interface Design for Older Adults with Varying Cultural Attitudes toward Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1913–1922. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557124Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 7302 (2010), 29–29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Geert Hofstede. 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1 (2011), 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena. 2019. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1, 9 (2019), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Peter Lange, Ulrik Boe Kjeldsen, Maja Tofteng, Anja Krag, and Kasper Lindgaard. 2014. The coexistence of two Ecolabels: The Nordic Ecolabel and the EU Ecolabel in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Council of Ministers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lithuanian Ministry of Economy and Innovation. 2019. Lithuanian Artificial Intelligence Strategy: A vision of the future. http://kurklt.lt/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/StrategyIndesignpdf.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Quenby Mahood, Dwayne Van Eerd, and Emma Irvin. 2013. Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods 5, 3 (2013), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1106Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Nordic Council of Ministers for Digitalisation. 2018. AI in the Nordic-Baltic region. https://www.norden.org/en/declaration/ai-nordic-baltic-region.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. 2019. National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nasjonal-strategi-for-kunstig-intelligens/id2685594.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Future of Life Institute. 2020. National and International AI Strategies. https://futureoflife.org/national-international-ai-strategies/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Publications Office of the European Union. 2020. Concept scheme - 7206 Europe. https://op.europa.eu/s/n3ru.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nigini Oliveira, Nazareno Andrade, and Katharina Reinecke. 2016. Participation Differences in Q&A Sites Across Countries: Opportunities for Cultural Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(NordiCHI ’16). 10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971520Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2019. Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence – OECD/Legal/0449. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Daniel Pargman, Elina Eriksson, Rob Comber, Ben Kirman, and Oliver Bates. 2018. The Futures of Computing and Wisdom. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(NordiCHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, 960–963. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240265Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Joachim Schöpfel. 2010. Towards a Prague definition of grey literature. In Twelfth International Conference on Grey Literature. 11–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Farid Shirazi, Adnan Seddighi, and Amna Iqbal. 2017. Cloud Computing Security and Privacy: An Empirical Study. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Contexts, Masaaki Kurosu (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, 534–549.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. C. Estelle Smith, Bowen Yu, Anjali Srivastava, Aaron Halfaker, Loren Terveen, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Keeping Community in the Loop: Understanding Wikipedia Stakeholder Values for Machine Learning-Based Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376783Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Jacopo Soldani. 2019. Grey Literature: A Safe Bridge Between Academy and Industry?SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 44, 3 (Nov. 2019), 11–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3356773.3356776Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jacopo Soldani, Damian Andrew Tamburri, and Willem-Jan Van Den Heuvel. 2018. The pains and gains of microservices: A Systematic grey literature review. Journal of Systems and Software 146 (2018), 215 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.082Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. The United States Government. 2020. Artificial Intelligence for the American People. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ai/ai-american-values/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. A. C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K. K. O’Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, D. Moher, M. D. J. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, S. Hempel, E. A. Akl, C. Chang, J. McGowan, L. Stewart, L. Hartling, A. Aldcroft, M. G. Wilson, C. Garritty, S. Lewin, C. M. Godfrey, M. T. Macdonald, E. V. Langlois, K. Soares-Weiser, J. Moriarty, T. Clifford, Ö. Tunçalp, and S. E. Straus. 2018. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169, 7 (10 2018), 467–473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. USA’s Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence of the National Science & Technology Council. 2019. The National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan: 2019 Update. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ai/ai-american-innovation/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Niels van Berkel, Jorge Goncalves, Danula Hettiachchi, Senuri Wijenayake, Ryan M. Kelly, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2019. Crowdsourcing Perceptions of Fair Predictors for Machine Learning: A Recidivism Case Study. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction - CSCW 3 (2019), 28:1–28:21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359130Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Cédric Villani, Yann Bonnet, Bertrand Rondepierre, 2018. For a Meaningful Artificial Intelligence: Towards a French and European Strategy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Sarah Theres Völkel, Christina Schneegass, Malin Eiband, and Daniel Buschek. 2020. What is ‘Intelligent’ in Intelligent User Interfaces? A Meta-Analysis of 25 Years of IUI. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(IUI ’20). 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377500Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Hao-Chuan Wang, Susan F. Fussell, and Leslie D. Setlock. 2009. Cultural Difference and Adaptation of Communication Styles in Computer-Mediated Group Brainstorming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518806Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Ruotong Wang, F. Maxwell Harper, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376813Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Allison Woodruff, Sarah E. Fox, Steven Rousso-Schindler, and Jeffrey Warshaw. 2018. A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 656, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174230Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Mike Woolridge, Peter Millican, and Paula Boddington. 2020. Ethics for Artificial Intelligence. https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/efai/resources/alphabetical-list-of-resources/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Qian Yang, Nikola Banovic, and John Zimmerman. 2018. Mapping Machine Learning Advances from HCI Research to Reveal Starting Places for Design Innovation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 130, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173704Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Chen Zhao, Pamela Hinds, and Ge Gao. 2012. How and to Whom People Share: The Role of Culture in Self-Disclosure in Online Communities. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(CSCW ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Chen Zhao and Gonglue Jiang. 2011. Cultural Differences on Visual Self-Presentation through Social Networking Site Profile Images. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1129–1132. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Systematic Assessment of National Artificial Intelligence Policies: Perspectives from the Nordics and Beyond
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society
            October 2020
            1177 pages
            ISBN:9781450375795
            DOI:10.1145/3419249

            Copyright © 2020 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 26 October 2020

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate89of399submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format