Should we publish algorithms used for automated decision-making?

Contrasting

The ADM ethics framework starts from a presumption of publication for algorithms that enable ADM, with plain-English explanations to citizens. Exceptions need government legal advice before ministerial authorisation. That sits alongside ATRS duties and Service Manual rules that users need not always know the technology stack, but must be told when AI affects data or outcomes.

Warning Conflicting or tensioned advice across sources

ADM presumption of publication vs Service Manual ‘users need not always know the stack’ framing.

How to navigate this: Publish/explain ADM algorithms unless a cleared exception applies; still follow Service Manual disclosure for user-facing effects.

From the guidance

Primary (how) Ethics, Transparency and Accountability Framework for Automated Decision-Making

Work on the basis of a ‘presumption of publication’ for all algorithms that enable automated decision-making, notifying citizens when a process or service has automated decision-making with plain English explanations (all exceptions to that rule agreed with government legal advisors before ministerial authorisation).

Section: 5. Help users and citizens understand how it impacts them

Read this in Ethics, Transparency and Accountability Framework for Automated Decision-Making (opens in new tab)

Contrasting Service Manual: Using artificial intelligence (AI) in services

Position: Users do not always need to know what technology is used, but must understand AI effects on data and outcomes.

Users do not always need to know what technology or software is used in a service to be able to access it. However, if you use AI in your service, you must make it clear to users how this might affect: their data; the outcome or information they receive from the service.

Section: Tell users when AI is being used

Read this in Service Manual: Using artificial intelligence (AI) in services (opens in new tab)

Related questions