Why Slovenia needs an AI registry

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have advanced significantly in recent years and are increasingly being used in Slovenia's public sector. However, the public and decision-makers pay little attention to the state's use of AI, even though there is evidence that algorithms can produce inaccurate results and lead to discriminatory and dangerous decisions.

This lack of attention concerns us. A societal discussion on the automation of public services, oversight of legal and responsible AI use, and public trust are only possible if the public has access to relevant information and knows which systems are being used. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Slovenia. In fact, it is practically impossible to get a clear picture of the AI tools the state uses, how they work, and in which procedures they are applied.

Due to this lack of transparency, Danes je nov dan established the Public Sector AI Registry, providing the public with a central source of information on algorithms in the public sector for the first time ever. The registry currently includes nine systems, but we estimate that at least several dozen more are in use. At the same time, we realize that our efforts cannot replace a systemic solution, as only the state can provide a comprehensive and credible overview of this field.

Therefore, we call on the Ministry of Digital Transformation and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia to take responsibility and establish a publicly accessible registry that will include key information on all AI systems in use within the public sector. While establishing such a registry alone cannot guarantee the impartiality or traceability of algorithms, it is an essential first step to ensure that AI use is responsible and that individuals have access to information about the algorithms that affect their lives.

What kind of registry do we need?

For such a registry to become an effective tool for democratic oversight, it must be designed thoughtfully and inclusively. This means it must go beyond being a mere technical database and become a foundation for the more responsible deployment and use of new technologies.

When designing the registry, the state should pursue the following goals:

1. The public should have access to comprehensive information about AI systems.

Transparency must not stop at publishing a system's name! For effective oversight, the registry must include key data about the entire lifecycle of an algorithm: from information on its purchase to a detailed explanation of its use, objectives, and role in decision-making. Technical information about the model's developer and the data it was trained on is also essential, along with a description of the available complaint mechanisms for individuals.

2. The public should be informed about all AI systems in use in the public sector.

The registry must include all AI systems in use – regardless of whether they are defined as high-risk, secret (such as systems in crime prevention, migration, and border control), or even exempt under current European regulations. Systems that are still in development or the purchasing process, as well as those no longer in use, should also be included.

3. The registry should be user-friendly and accessible.

Information is only useful if it is accessible and understandable. The registry must be designed to allow for easy searching and filtering, and every change of the information must be recorded. To enable further analysis by experts and the media, the database must be machine-readable and accessible via an API call, and the registry’s source code should be open source.

To achieve this vision, it is necessary to adopt an appropriate legal framework, ensure stable funding, and designate individuals who will be responsible for the regular and credible input of data. External stakeholders, especially expert and civil society organizations that represent the rights of vulnerable groups, must also participate in the development and oversight of the registry.

Funded by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the EACEA can be held responsible for them.