Cited by 41Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Accountability in Computer Systems

Kroll, Joshua A.·2020·The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI

Abstract

This chapter addresses the relationship between AI systems and the concept of accountability. To understand accountability in the context of AI systems, one must begin by examining the various ways the term is used and the variety of concepts to which it is meant to refer. Accountability is often associated with transparency, the principle that systems and processes should be accessible to those affected through an understanding of their structure or function. For a computer system, this often means disclosure about the system’s existence, nature, and scope; scrutiny of its underlying data and reasoning approaches; and connection of the operative rules implemented by the system to the governing norms of its context. Transparency is a useful tool in the governance of computer systems, but only insofar as it serves accountability. There are other mechanisms available for building computer systems that support accountability of their creators and operators. Ultimately, accountability requires establishing answerability relationships that serve the interests of those affected by AI systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.10

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accountability is a key pillar of trustworthy AI and is essential for sound AI governance by addressing moral responsibility and operational responsibility.

    “Accountability, a key pillar of trustworthy AI (European Commission 2019), is essential for ensuring sound AI governance by addressing both moral responsibility (who is to blame) and operational responsibility (how to prevent or review failures) (Kroll 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kroll, J. A.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Kroll, Joshua A.
Venue
The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI
Published
2020-07-09
Pages
180-196
OpenAlex
W3040702932
Cited by
41
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
34.90
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Calhoun: The Naval Postgraduate School Institutional Archive (Naval Postgraduate School) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
accountability, artificial intelligence systems, transparency, answerability, normative governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review