CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

The Concept of Accountability in AI Ethics and Governance

Open access
Lechterman, Theodore M.·2022·The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance
DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.10
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Calls to hold artificial intelligence to account are intensifying. Activists and researchers alike warn of an “accountability gap” or even a “crisis of accountability” in AI. Meanwhile, several prominent scholars maintain that accountability holds the key to governing AI. But usage of the term varies widely in discussions of AI ethics and governance. This chapter begins by disambiguating some different senses and dimensions of accountability, distinguishing it from neighboring concepts, and identifying sources of confusion. It proceeds to explore the idea that AI operates within an accountability gap arising from technical features of AI as well as the social context in which it is deployed. The chapter also evaluates various proposals for closing this gap. It concludes that the role of accountability in AI ethics and governance is vital but also more limited than some suggest. Accountability’s primary job description is to verify compliance with substantive normative principles—once those principles are settled. Theories of accountability cannot ultimately tell us what substantive standards to account for, especially when norms are contested or still emerging. Nonetheless, formal mechanisms of accountability provide a way of diagnosing and discouraging egregious wrongdoing even in the absence of normative agreement. Providing accounts can also be an important first step toward the development of more comprehensive regulatory standards for AI.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.10

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Jeremy Waldron, "Accountability and Insolence," in Political Political Theory: Essays on Institutions (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2016), 167-94.
  2. Andrew Tutt, "An FDA For Algorithms," Administrative Law Review 69, no. 1 (2017): 83-123.
  3. Finale Doshi-Velez et al., "Accountability of AI Under the Law: The Role of Explanation," ArXiv:1711.01134 [ · arXiv
  4. Cs, Stat], December 20, 2019, http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01134. · arXiv
  5. See also, Madalina Busuioc, "Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account," Public Administration Review 81, no. 5 (September 2021): 834.
  6. Reuben Binns, "Algorithmic Accountability and Public Reason," Philosophy & Technology 31, no. 4 (December 2018): 543-56, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5. Rise in Popularity of Cryptocurrency and Associated Criminal Activity," International Criminal Justice Review 30, no. 3 (September 2020): 325-44, https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567719827051. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Danaher, John. "The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation." Philosophy & Technology 29, no. 3 (2016): 245-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015- 0211-1. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Goodin, Robert E. "Democratic Accountability: The Distinctiveness of the Third Sector." European Journal of Sociology 44, no. 3 (2003): 359-96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975603001322. · DOI
  9. Grant, Ruth W., and Robert O. Keohane. "Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics." American Political Science Review 99, no. 1 (2005): 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051476. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Kohli, Nitin, Renata Barreto, and Joshua A. Kroll. "Translation Tutorial: A Shared Lexicon for Research and Practice in Human-Centered Software Systems." 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Vol. 7. New York, NY, 2018.
  11. Kroll, Joshua A. "Accountability in Computer Systems." In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, edited by Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das, 179-96. Oxford University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013. · DOI
  12. Kroll, Joshua A., Solon Barocas, Edward W. Felten, Joel R. Reidenberg, David G. Robinson, and Harlan Yu. "Accountable Algorithms." U. Pa. L. Rev. 165 (2016): 633.
  13. McGinnis, John O. "Accelerating AI." Northwestern University Law Review 104, no. 3 (2010): 1253-69.
  14. Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life Stanford, C.A.: Stanford University Press, 2010.
  15. Rahwan, Iyad. "Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract." Ethics and Information Technology 20, no. 1 (2018): 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017- 9430-8. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Rudin, Cynthia. "Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead." Nature Machine Intelligence 1, no. 5 (May 2019): 206-15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Selbst, Andrew D. "An Institutional View Of Algorithmic Impact Assessments." Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Forthcoming.
  18. Skitka, Linda J., Kathleen Mosier, and Mark D. Burdick. "Accountability and Automation Bias." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52, no. 4 (April 2000): 701-17. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0349. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Tutt, Andrew. "An FDA For Algorithms." Administrative Law Review 69, no. 1 (2017): 83- 123.
  20. Watson, Gary. "Two Faces of Responsibility," Philosophical Topics 24, no. 2 (1996): 227- 48. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics199624222. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lechterman, T. M.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Lechterman, Theodore M.
ORCID
Lechterman, Theodore M.
Venue
The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Published
2022-12-19
Pages
164-182
DOI
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.10
OpenAlex
W4311911485
Cited by
23
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
12.49
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • IE Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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, AI ethics, AI governance, accountability gap, normative principles, AI regulation

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