✍️By Isadora Argenta.
Isadora is an Undergraduate Student in Political Science and minoring in Communication and Portuguese, as well as an Undergraduate Affiliate at the Governance and Responsible AI Lab (GRAIL), Purdue University.
📌 Editor’s Note: This article is part of our AI Policy Corner series, a collaboration between the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) and the Governance and Responsible AI Lab (GRAIL) at Purdue University. The series provides concise insights into critical AI policy developments from the local to international levels, helping our readers stay informed about the evolving landscape of AI governance. This article analyzes the Illinois Public Act 103-0804 and its regulation of how AI is deployed in the workplace.
Within newer generations, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being implemented not only in our day-to-day activities but also in our workplaces. Companies have started to apply AI to help screen job applications, and to help decide future promotions. Consequently, these technologies are affecting individual career opportunities and professional outcomes. Researchers explain that these systems are likely to be distributed unevenly between workers and industry, meaning that some groups may benefit more than others. Due to these biases, governments are beginning to regulate how AI is used in the workplace. The Illinois Public Act 103-0804 is a prime example of these regulatory efforts.
Definitions
The Illinois Public Act 103-0804 defines Artificial Intelligence as a machine-based system that takes input and produces outputs. Examples of those would be recommending a decision or content that can further influence environments. The Act also defines generative Artificial Intelligence as an automated computing system that produces content when prompted by a human user.
Discrimination within Artificial Intelligence
A principal component of the Illinois Public Act 103-0804 is the introduction of rules about how AI can be used in employment decisions. The Act reveals that if an AI system results in discrimination against individuals who are protected under the Illinois Human Rights Act, it would be a civil rights violation for the employer that used such a system. Ultimately, this means that employers cannot rely on AI systems, as this could lead to unfair treatment of employees or job applicants.
This rule is significant as AI systems can unintentionally amplify existing inequalities in the workforce. Since AI usually rely on large datasets to generate recommendations, the patterns within the data can further impact the results. If any historical employment data shows inequality or misrepresentation, automatic systems may produce those same patterns when assisting with making workforce decisions.
The Illinois Public Act 103-0804 furthermore describes differential ways that discrimination can occur indirectly through the use of certain types of data. For instance, with the use of zip codes, the act states that employers cannot use zip codes as a proxy for protected classes when AI is used in employment decisions. This recognizes that some information may indirectly reflect on protected characteristics, which could lead to discriminatory outcomes. The Act also has a strong focus on transparency, as it articulates that employers must provide notice to employees if AI is being used in employment decisions covered by the law, and the failure to do so is considered a violation. By requiring transparency, the law attempts to ensure that workers remain more aware of how these systems may influence decisions about their employment.
Importance
Although the Illinois Human Rights Act already prohibits discrimination in hiring and workplace decisions, the Public Act of 103-0804 clarifies that these protections will still apply even when decisions are made using automated systems. This means employers cannot avoid responsibility for discriminatory outcomes just because the decision was influenced by an algorithm. Employers must remain responsible for ensuring that technologies comply with civil rights protection.
It is also important to acknowledge that the benefits of generative AI are not evenly distributed, as some workers may gain more from productive improvements while others may bear greater disadvantages. By requiring employers to account for how AI impacts employees, the Act aims to prevent unequal effects.
Further Reading:
- How different states are approaching AI
- How artificial intelligence impacts the US labor market
- What is AI bias?
Image credit: 2Civility