To put algorithms at the service of society, they propose four concrete solutions:
First, a broad societal debate. We as society must discuss where we use algorithms, for what purpose and according to what rules. Not all algorithmic systems are equally relevant to our society. But where intelligent machines determine our lives, there must be a public debate about their goals, their design and their effect.
Second, effective control. Algorithmic decisions must be clearly recognizable as such and be verifiable, comprehensible and contestable in case of doubt by users or independent third parties. This does not require a standardized technical inspection for every single algorithm or even a separate algorithmic law. Instead, the legislator should above all supplement existing laws and strengthen long-established control institutions such as financial supervision or drug control authorities.
Third, diversity and competition. Monopolies are harmful, as everywhere else, when algorithms are used. Only a diversity of algorithmic systems and goals can adequately represent social plurality, avoid discrimination and promote innovation. Essential for this is better access to the fuel of algorithms, the data. Only those who have access to high-quality data can succeed in becoming serious competitors on the market.
Fourth: Algorithmic competency at all levels. Every citizen must be able to assess whether and how the decisions of an algorithm are relevant for him or her. Anyone who commissions, develops and uses software must consider its social consequences and ethical aspects. And we need a public sector that is strong in AI matters, one that regulates intelligently on the one hand and uses algorithms to foster the common good on the other hand. A state agency for algorithmic competencies would help to quickly build up the urgently needed abilities for this throughout the public administration.
The authors do not see Europe’s current backlog as an obstacle, but rather as an opportunity. “We don’t have to repeat the mistakes of others and can go our own European way, which should not see values and competitiveness as opposites. This European path gives the common good a higher priority than in the US and, unlike in China, preserves a high degree of individual freedom.”