10 | New Scientist | 7 December 2019
THIS 18,000-year-old puppy,
found in the Siberian permafrost, is
remarkably well preserved – it still
has its nose, fur, teeth and whiskers.
A team at the Centre for
Palaeogenetics in Sweden has been
analysing the animal’s rib bone,
after the puppy was found last year
at a site near Yakutsk in eastern
Siberia. So far, the researchers have
determined that the animal is male
and estimate that he was 2 months
old. The puppy is now named Dogor,
a Yakutian word for “friend”.
Yet DNA tests to determine if it
was a dog or a wolf have come up
blank. If it was a dog, it may be the
oldest found. But one of the team
thinks it may be a common ancestor
of both dogs and wolves. “It’s
normally relatively easy to tell the
difference between the two,” David
Stanton told CNN. “The fact that we
can’t might suggest that it’s from
a population that was ancestral to
both – to dogs and wolves.” ❚ArchaeologyBUSINESSES and other
organisations could face
multimillion-pound fines if they
are unable to explain decisions
made by artificial intelligence,
under plans put forward by the
UK’s data watchdog this week.
The Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said
its new guidance was vital because
the UK is at a tipping point where
many firms are using AI to inform
decisions for the first time. This
could include human resources
departments using machine
learning to shortlist job applicants
based on analysis of their CVs.
The regulator says it is the first
in the world to put forward rules
on explaining choices taken by AI.About two-thirds of UK financial
service companies are using AI
to make decisions, including
insurance firms to manage claims,
and an ICO survey shows that
about half of the UK public are
concerned about algorithms
making decisions that humans
would usually explain.
AI researchers are already
being called on to do more to
unpack the “black box” nature
of how machine learning arrives
at results.
Simon McDougall at the ICO
says: “This is purely about
explainability. It does touch
on the whole issue of black box
explainability, but it’s really
driving at what rights do peoplehave to an explanation. How do
you make an explanation about
an AI decision transparent, fair,
understandable and accountable
to the individual?”
The guidance, which is
now out for consultation,tells organisations how to
communicate explanations
to people in a form that they
will understand. Failure to
do so could, in extreme cases,
result in a fine of up to 4 per
cent of a company’s globalturnover, under the European
Union’s data protection law.
Not having enough money
or time to explain AI decisions
won’t be an acceptable excuse,
says McDougall. “They have to
be accountable for their actions.
If they don’t have the resources
to properly think through how
they are going to use AI to make
decisions, then they should be
reflecting on whether they
should be using it all.” He also
hopes the step will result in firms
that buy-in AI systems rather
than building their own asking
more questions of how they work.
The guidance is expected
to take effect in 2020. ❚Artificial intelligenceFirms must explain AI decision-making
Jessica HamzelouPrehistoric puppy
Frozen canine may be an ancestor of dogs and wolves
SE
RGEY
FEDOROVNews
“ A survey shows that
about half the public are
concerned about decisions
being made by algorithms”Adam Vaughan