Contenido principal del artículo

Maria Lorena Florez Rojas

Los marcos regulatorios, que determinan la participación de las partes interesadas, deben respetar los principios para una participación eficaz y que sea oportuna, inclusiva, transparente e iterativa. Sin embargo, la creación e implementación de marcos regulatorios sobre temas innovadores, en ocasiones, suele estar sesgada por una parte dominante en la discusión. Este artículo demuestra cómo el enfoque del pensamiento de diseño, principalmente en su fase de co-creación, es potencialmente propicio para la creación e implementación de las denominadas estrategias de Inteligencia Artificial (ia), debido a su énfasis en el respeto por la dignidad humana y otros atributos fundamentales, como la empatía, aunque plantea diversos retos para su aplicación. Este enfoque se basa en una metodología deductiva, a través del proceso de creación y socialización de las estrategias para la ia, que fueron desarrollados en Canadá y Colombia. Con este artículo se busca incentivar la innovación tecnológica y regulatoria a través del pensamiento de diseño para que sea considerado como parte integral de la convocatoria real de las múltiples partes interesadas, con el fin de facilitar la creación de un programa proactivo de ética digital para prevenir las preocupaciones relacionadas con la adopción de la ia a gran escala.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Florez Rojas, M. L. (2023). Pensamiento de diseño y marcos éticos para la Inteligencia Artificial: una mirada a la participación de las múltiples partes interesadas. Desafíos, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/desafios/a.12183

acnudh. & onu. (1975). Declaración sobre la utilización del progreso científico y tecnológico en interés de la paz y en beneficio de la humanidad. https://www.ohchr.org/SP/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ScientificAndTechnologicalProgress.asx

Archer, L. B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. design.

Arnold, J. E. (1959). Creative Engineering: Promoting Innovation by Thinking Differently [Introducción y ensayo biográfico de W. J. Clancey]. University of Texas Press.

Balakrishnan, T., Chui, M., Hall, B., & Henke, N. (2020). The state of AI in 2020 [Global survey].

McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-analytics/our-insights/global-survey-the-state-of-ai-in-2020

Bason, C., & Austin, R. D. (2021). Design in the public sector: Toward a human centred model of public governance. Public Management Review,24(11), 1727-1757. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1919186

Bathaee, Y. (2020). Artificial Intelligence Opinion Liability. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 113. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38P55DH32

Bault, N., & Rusconi, E. (2020). The Art of Influencing Consumer Choices: A Reflection on Recent Advances in Decision Neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3009. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2019.03009

Baum, S. D. (2020). Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence. ai and Society, 35(1), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0760-1

Bhargava, V. R., & Velásquez, M. (2020). Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(3), 321-359. https://doi.org/10.1017/BEQ.2020.32

Big Data Value Association. (2018). Data-driven artificial intelligence for European Economic

Competitiveness and societal progress. bdva Position Statement November 2018 [ai Position Paper]. https://bdva.eu/sites/default/files/AI-Position-Statement-BDVA-Final-12112018.pdf

Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V., Díaz, M., Elish, M. C., Gabriel, I., & Mohamed, S. (2022). Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3551624.3555290

bkc Scholars Helped Guide Colombia’s ai Policy Implementation as Part of the Country’s

‘ai Expert Mission’. Ethics and Governance of ai. (2022, 8 de agosto). Berkman Klein

Center. https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2022-08/bkc-scholars-helped-guide-colombias-ai-policy-implementation-part-countrys-ai-expert

Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information

Technology, 15(3), 209-227. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6

Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and

design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10676-015-9380-Y

Brandusescu, A., Cutean, A., Dawson, P., Davidson, R., Matthews, M., & O’Neill, K. (2021). Maximizing Strengths and Spearheading Opportunity: Towards an Industrial Strategy for Canadian Artificial Intelligence. Information and Communications Technology Council-ictc.

Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., & van Vugt, S. (2016). La guía de las MSP: Cómo diseñar y facilitar asociaciones de múltiples partes interesadas. Practical Action Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780447520

Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders:

A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EVALPROGPLAN.2010.07.001

Cavoukian, A. (2012, winter). Privacy by design. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 31(4), 18-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2012.2225459

cifar. (2020). AICan 2020. CIFAR Pan-Canadian ai Strategy Impact Report. https://cifar.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AICan-2020-CIFAR-Pan-Canadian-AI-Strategy-Impact-Report.pdf

Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2051-2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8

Cottam, Hilary; Leadbeater, C. (2004). Red Paper 01 health: Co-creating services. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/fileadmin/uploads/dc/Documents/red-paperhealth.pdf

Decker, M., & Ladikas, M. (2004). Technology Assessment in Europe; between Method and Impact — The TAMI Project. En M. Decker, M. Ladikas, S. Stephan, & F. Wütscher (Eds.), Bridges between Science, Society and Policy (pp. 1-10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-06171-8_1

Departamento Nacional de Planeación. (2022). Propuesta de Caracterización del ecosistema de datos en Colombia [Documento para comentarios]. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Desarrollo Digital/Publicaciones/Ecosistema de Datos_Version_Comentarios.pdf

Directive on Automated Decision-Making. (2021). Government of Canada. https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32592

Ehn, P. (2008, 1-4 de octubre). Participation in Design Things. Tenth Conference on Participatory

Design, Bloomington, Indiana. https://doi.org/10.1145/1795234.1795248

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press. https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/3208509

Fenwick, M., Kaal, W. A., & Vermeulen, E. P. M. (2017). Regulation Tomorrow: What Happens When Technology Is Faster than the Law? American University Business Law Review, 6(3), 561-594. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=aublr

Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-Based Approaches to Principles for ai. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication, (2020-1). https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3518482

Flórez Rojas, M. L. (2022). El determinismo algorítmico en Colombia: riesgos para la protección del usuario. En M. L. Flórez ROjas (Coord.), Derecho de las tecnologías y las tecnologías para el derecho (pp. 161-209). Uniandes. https://doi.org/10.15425/2017.571

Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. acm Transactions on

Information Systems (tois), 14(3), 330-347. https://doi.org/10.1145/230538.230561

Gobierno de Canadá. (2021). Responsible use of artificial intelligence (ai). https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-governmentinnovations/responsible-use-ai.html#toc1

Gobierno de Canadá. (2022, 22 de junio). Government of Canada launches second phase of the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy. News ised. https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2022/06/government-of-canada-launches-second-phase-of-the-pan-canadian-artificial-intelligence-strategy.html

Guío Español, A. (2021a). Consejo Internacional de Inteligencia Artificial para Colombia.

Gobierno de Colombia; caf. https://dapre.presidencia.gov.co/TD/CONSEJO-INTERNACIONAL-INTELIGENCIA-ARTIFICIAL-COLOMBIA.pdf

Guío Español, A. (2021b, 14 de septiembre). Por qué Colombia se ha posicionado

como líder regional en inteligencia artificial. caf. https://www.caf.com/es/conocimiento/visiones/2021/09/por-que-colombia-se-ha-posicionado-como-lider-regional-en-inteligencia-artificial/

Guío Español, A., Tamayo Uribe, E., Gómez Ayerbe, P., & Mujica, M. P. (2021). Marco

ético para la Inteligencia Artificial en Colombia. Gobierno de Colombia. https://inteligenciaartificial.gov.co/static/img/MARCO_ETICO.pdf.

Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2017). Smart regulation. En P. Drahos (Ed.), Regulatory

Theory: Foundations and applications (Cap. 8, pp. 133-148). ANU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q1crtm.16?seq=1

Hernández, L., Canales, M. P., & De Souza, M. (2022). Inteligencia Artificial y participación

en América Latina: Las estrategias nacionales de ia. Derechos Digitales. https://www.derechosdigitales.org/publicaciones/inteligencia-artificial-y-participacion-en-america-latina-las-estrategias-nacionales-de-ia/

Holmlid, S. (2009, 24-26 de noviembre). Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: From participatory design to service design. First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, Oslo, Noruega. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228629923_Participative_co-operative_emancipatory_From_participatory_design_to_service_design

Howard, W. (2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1(3), 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439340903114628

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/CAIM.12023

Kim, M., & Wolf, C. (2014). The impact assessment we want. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(1), 19-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2013.872847

Madiega, T. A. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Act. Think Tank European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2021)698792

Mayer, S., Schwemmle, M., Nicolai, C., & Weinberg, U. (2021). Assessing the Impact of Design Thinking in Organizations: Foundations of a Framework. En C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design Thinking Research (pp. 255-272). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76324-4_14

Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes: Opportunities and Challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211

Mujica Ramírez, M. P., & Guio Español, A. (2021). Misión de Expertos en ia de Colombia:

Diagnóstico, miembros y objetivos. Gobierno de Colombia; bid. https://inteligenciaartificial.gov.co/static/img/201021_Mision_de_Expertos_en_IA_de_Colombia.pdf

Munn, L. (2022). The uselessness of AI ethics. ai and Ethics 2022, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43681-022-00209-W

Nathan, G. (2018). Design-thinking approach to ethical (responsible) technological innovation. En R. Gianni, J. Pearson, & B. Reber (Eds.), Responsible Research and Innovation (pp. 286-300). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315457291-14

oecd. (2000). Reducing the risk of policy failure: challenges for regulatory compliance. https://www.oecd.org/regreform/regulatory-policy/1910833.pdf

oecd. (2012). Alternatives to traditional regulation [oecd Report]. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/42245468.pdf

oecd. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Society. https://doi.org/10.1787/eedfee77-en

oecd. (2020). oecd.ai Policy Observatory. A platform to share and shape ai policies [Folleto].

https://oecd.ai/en/assets/files/about-the-oecd-ai-policy-observatory.pdf

oecd. (2022). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449

Payne, S. L., & Calton, J. M. (2017). Towards a Managerial Practice of Stakeholder Engagement: Developing multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. En J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking (pp. 121-135). Routledge.

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2009). Design-Thinking; Innovation Lernen;

Ideenwelten Öffnen. mi-Wirtschaftsbuch; Finanzbuch Verl.

Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Retief, F. (2013). Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2013.01.008

Renda, A. (2019). Artificial Intelligence: Ethics, governance and policy challenges [CEPS Paperback Series]. CEPS Centre for European Policy Studies. https://www.ceps.eu/download/publication/?id=10869&pdf=AI_TFR.pdf

Renda, A., Schrefler, L., Luchetta, G., & Zavatta, R. (2013). Assessing the costs and benefits of Regulation. Centre for European Policy Studies-ceps.

Sadar, P., Carnet, P., & Heinz, S. (2022). An independent review of children’s social care: Appreciating the wider family context. Policy Lab. https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2022/06/09/an-independent-review-of-childrens-social-care-appreciating-the-wider-family-context/

Sara, B. (2020). The future of impact assessment: problems, solutions and recommendations.

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 104-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1672443

Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Lang, K. (2018, 17-20 de junio). An Integrated Design Thinking Approach: Literature Review, Basic Principles and Roadmap for Design Thinking. XXIX ISPIM Innovation Conference “Innovation, The Name of The Game, Stockholm, Sweden.

Schwoerer, K., Keppeler, F., Mussagulova, A., & Puello, S. (2022). co-design-ing a more context-based, pluralistic, and participatory future for public administration. Public Administration, 100(1), 72-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/PADM.12828

Therivel, R. (2020). Impact assessment: from whale to shark. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 118-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1676070

Thienen, J. P. A. von, Clancey, W. J., Corazza, G. E., & Meinel, C. (2018). Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking. En H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design Thinking Research (pp. 13-40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60967-6_2

Trischler, J., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). Co-design: from expert- to user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Managment Review, 21(11), 1595-1619. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619810

Tuchman, B. W. (1985). The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. Random House Trade

Paperbacks.

Umoja Noble, S. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism.

NYU Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479837243/algorithms-of-oppression/

United Nations. (2006). Multi-Stakeholder Engagement Processes: A undp capacity development resource [Conference Paper #7. Working Draft, November 06]. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/Engagement-Processes-cp7.pdf

United Nations. (2021). Resource Guide on Artificial Intelligence (ai) Strategies. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/202106/Resource%20Guide%20on%20AI%20Strategies_June%202021.pdf

Valentine, L., Kroll, T., Bruce, F., Lim, C., & Mountain, R. (2017). Design Thinking for Social Innovation in Health Care. The Design Journal, 20(6), 755-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1372926

Walden, I., & Christou, T. A. (2018). Legal and Regulatory Implications of Disruptive Technologies in Emerging Market Economies [A Report for the World Bank]. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3230674

Warner, J. (2016). The Beauty of the Beast: Multi-Stakeholder Participation for Integrated

Catchment Management. En J. Warner (Ed.), Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Water Management (pp. 17-36). Routledge.

Wayne-Nixon, L., Wragg-Morris, Tanya, M., Anjali, M., & Kindornay, S. (2019). Effective

multi-stakeholder engagement to realize the 2030 Agenda in Canada. https://www.bccic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Effective_Engagement_International.pdf

wipo. (2019). WIPO Technology Trends 2019 – Artificial Intelligence. https://www.wipo.

int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4396

World Economic Forum. (2016). Values and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Connecting

the Dots Between Value, Values, Profit and Purpose. https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/values-and-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-connecting-thedots-between-value-values-profit-and-purpose/

Young, M. M., Bullock, J. B., & Lecy, J. D. (2019). Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance:

A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(4), 301-313. https://doi.org/10.1093/PPMGOV/GVZ014

Detalles del artículo