In search of regimes of regulation and accountability for Artificial Intelligence (AI) the era of fourth industrial revolution (4IR) in South Africa

Abstract

While the deployment and use of Artificial Intelligence Systems (AIS) have continued to grow at an exponential rate in the world, it is assumed that while they have contributed immensely to the economy and society, there is still the problem on how to hold the AIS legally liable and responsible just like a juristic person. The corporate sector in South Africa has intensified the deployment and usage of AIS for their operations. In the process, these systems are susceptible to commits errors and harms thus making it eligible for accountability. It is against this backdrop of this accountability gap for AIS in the corporate sector that this study explores existing legislative frameworks and other laws to seek to hold AIS accountable. The paper stressed that for there to be a holistic accountability, fragmented legislation for holding AIS accountable should be harmonised for purposes of effective accountability. Especially when it relates to decision-making by both executive management and board of directors. The study has also explored liability and accountability obligations within the entire value chain involved in the creation of artificial intelligence systems as the 4IR occupies a central place in full swing in our lives. The situation in South Africa is precarious because, presently, the AIS have not been granted clear legal status in any South African statutes. It is pertinent to point out that while there is no legislative framework dealing specifically with AIS and related legal issues in the financial sector such as the banking industry, a raft of legislation is in place to regulate potential risks posed by the use of AIS in the sector in South Africa. The problem is the fragmented way the regulations and legislation have been approached. To curb the lack of accountability by using AIS in the financial sector, this paper broadly accentuates that to bridge the accountability gap, germane provisions of the Constitution, fragmented legislation, and the jurisprudence from the other jurisdictions where AIS accountability is well developed and have the potential to hold AIS responsible for their omissions or commission was explored and useful lessons drawn accordingly.