Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Strategic Business Leader · Machine learning, AI and robotics

Tamsin Insurance deploys AI to approve motor claims automatically. Auditors find the model is highly accurate overall but cannot explain individual rejections, and rejection rates are noticeably higher for one postcode area. Which response best reflects sound governance of AI?

The sound response is to add human oversight and explainability requirements and to test the model for bias. High overall accuracy does not justify unexplained or potentially discriminatory rejections, while abandoning AI entirely or making it more complex would be disproportionate or worsen opacity.

  1. AIntroduce human oversight and explainability requirements, and test the model for bias before continuing to rely on itCorrect
  2. BContinue unchanged because overall accuracy is high
  3. CWithdraw all AI use permanently because algorithms cannot be governed
  4. DMake the model more complex so that it learns to remove the postcode effect itself

Explanation

Overall accuracy does not remove the risk of unfair outcomes or the need to justify decisions to customers and regulators. Oversight, explainability and bias testing address both issues. Permanent withdrawal is disproportionate, and added complexity worsens opacity.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Machine learning, AI and robotics shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

More Machine learning, AI and robotics questions