Michael Wade and Tomoko Yokoi, Harvard Business Review (HBR); How to Implement AI — Responsibly

"Regrettably, our research suggests that such proactive measures are the exception rather than the rule. While AI ethics is high on the agenda for many organizations, translating AI principles into practices and behaviors is proving easier said than done. However, with stiff financial penalties at stake for noncompliance, there’s little time to waste. What should leaders do to double-down on their responsible AI initiatives?

To find answers, we engaged with organizations across a variety of industries, each at a different stage of implementing responsible AI. While data engineers and data scientists typically take on most responsibility from conception to production of AI development lifecycles, nontechnical leaders can play a key role in ensuring the integration of responsible AI. We identified four key moves — translate, integrate, calibrate and proliferate — that leaders can make to ensure that responsible AI practices are fully integrated into broader operational standards."

How To Approach AI Adoption Ethically And Responsibly Within Your Organization; Forbes, September 24, 2023

  Rhett Power, Forbes; How To Approach AI Adoption Ethically And Responsibly Within Your Organization

"In order to take full advantage of everything AI technology has to offer, you must be careful and efficient when adding this technology to your organization’s processes. Luckily, you can do a few things to ensure a smooth and flawless transition. Here are four strategies that can pave the way for ethical implementation...

2. Remain up to date on all regulations.

In addition to establishing an AI ethics advisor, it is essential to remain current on the ever-evolving regulations surrounding the use of AI. As the technology advances rapidly, laws will be enacted to address ethical concerns and protect individuals’ rights. By proactively addressing potential problems related to privacy infringement or bias algorithms through adherence to regulations, organizations can foster a positive reputation while harnessing the benefits of AI innovation. Remaining current on all the regulations ensures your organization meets all legal requirements and industry standards.

Until legal requirements and industry standards are ironed out, you must aim to be as transparent as possible. “Currently, there is no way to peer into the inner workings of an AI tool and guarantee that the system is producing accurate or fair output,” says Tsedal Neeley, Naylor Fitzhugh Professor of Business Administration and senior associate dean of faculty and research at Harvard Business School. “As a consequence, leaders should exercise careful judgment in determining when and how it’s appropriate to use AI, and they should document when and how AI is being used. That way people will know that an AI-driven decision was appraised with an appropriate level of skepticism, including its potential risks or shortcomings.”"

Statements of Solidarity with Colleagues in Ukraine by Archive, Library, and Other Organizations; Info Docket, Library Journal, February 27, 2022

 Gary Price, Info Docket, Library Journal; Statements of Solidarity with Colleagues in Ukraine by Archive, Library, and Other Organizations

"Statements of Solidarity and Support (Latest Entries in Bold)

• American Historical Association: Historians Condemn Russian Invasion of Ukraine (February 2022)
• AUPresses: On Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
• 15 Member Societies (ACLS) Sign On to American Historical Association Statement Condemning Russian Invasion of Ukraine
• American Library Association (ALA) Stands with Ukrainian Library Community
• Association Research Libraries (ARL) Statement on Ukraine
• Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Statement on the Situation in Ukraine
• Canada: On Behalf of the Ex Libris Association: Statement of Solidarity With Our Professional Colleagues in the Ukraine
• Canadian Library Community Expresses Support for Ukraine (via CFLA)
• Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) Statement on Ukraine
• Danish Library Association: Libraries Can Help Ukraine in the Fight for Truth
• Committee on Data of the International Science Council (CODATA) Statement on the War in Ukraine
• Digital Preservation Coalition Statment (DPC) on the Invasion of Ukraine, February 2022
• Elsevier Condemns Russian Invasion of Ukraine
• European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) Statement on Ukraine
• Federation of European Publishers (FEP) Condemns Russia’s Attack on Ukraine
• International Association for the Humanities (MAG) Statement on the Russian Invasion (via ACLS)
• International Council on Archives (ICA): Solidarity with Ukrainian Archives and Records Professionals
• International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Statement on Ukraine
• International Council on Museums (ICOM) Statement Concerning the Russian Invasion Into Ukraine
• International Publishers Association (IPA) Response to Ukrainian Publishers and Booksellers Association
• International Science Council (ISC) Statement on Ukraine
• Joint Statement by the National Academies of the G7 States on Russia’s Attack on Ukraine
• Library Association of Latvia Statement to Ukrainian Librarians and Citizens
• Metropolitan New York Library Council (METRO) Statement of Support for Ukraine
• NASEM: ‘We Stand With Our Colleagues in Ukraine,’ Say U.S. National Academies Presidents
• OCLC Stands in Solidarity With Ukraine
• ORCID: A Special Message About Ukraine
• PEN Statement on Ukraine (PEN America)
• Society of American Archivists (SAA): Solidarity with Ukrainian Archives and Archivists
• Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) Statement of Solidarity With Library Professionals in Ukraine
• SPARC Europe: Ukraine, We Stand With You
• Springer Nature Condemns Russian Invasion
• Taylor & Francis Statement on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
• UK Community of Librarians, Archivists and Information Professionals Issue Statement of Solidarity and Support with Ukrainian Colleagues (via CILIP)
• UMass Libraries Stand with Ukraine
• Wikimedia Foundation Calls for Continued Access to Free and Open Knowledge as Ukraine Crisis Continues
• The Wiener Holocaust Library’s Statement on Ukraine)"

Hillary Clinton, Burns Strider, and the Fault Lines of #MeToo; The Atlantic, January 26, 2018

Megan Garber, The Atlantic; Hillary Clinton, Burns Strider, and the Fault Lines of #MeToo

"The Times story paints a picture of a Hillary Clinton who is, given her history, both a recipient of harassment and a passive enabler of it. A manager, in other words, like so many of the others who have been revealed in the journalism of the post-Weinstein months: one who learns of an accusation of harassment and addresses it by disrupting the life of the alleged victim, rather than the life of the alleged perpetrator. The boss who found enough evidence of Burns Strider’s wrongdoing to dock his pay and put him in counseling … but who kept him on staff—with all its many other young women—nonetheless. Here is Clinton serving, yet again, as a rich metaphor—this time, though, for complacency and complicity. For powerful people who are concerned, but not concerned enough.

And also: for managers who meet the humanity at the heart of harassment allegations with the clinical language of corporate callousness. It’s unsurprising, perhaps, but notable nonetheless that Clinton responded to the Times’ reporting with a statement that was many steps removed from Clinton, the person: It was written by Utrecht, Kleinfeld, Fiori, Partners, the law firm that had represented the campaign in 2008 (and that, the Times puts it, has “been involved on sexual harassment issues”). The statement was delivered, from there, through an unnamed Clinton spokesman. “To ensure a safe working environment,” it read, “the campaign had a process to address complaints of misconduct or harassment. When matters arose, they were reviewed in accordance with these policies, and appropriate action was taken. This complaint was no exception.”

So while it was Clinton, the manager, the Times report goes, who made the decision to keep Strider on her team, Clinton, the manager, is notably absent from today’s explanation of things. She has outsourced her own decision-making, it seems, to discussions of process and policies—the same anonymous structures that so many other managers have relied on for legal, and moral, insulation. What were the “processes” that kept Strider in his job and his accuser out of hers? You are not supposed to ask. “Processes” are meant to be the answers to their own questions. So are “policies.” Corporations-as-people, if you’d like, but the framework falls apart when organizations are able to deny that humanity as soon as it becomes a liability."