Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDesigning Fair AI for Managing Employees in Organizations: A Review, Critique, and Design Agenda
340
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Lionel Robert
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Organizations are rapidly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems to manage their workers. However, AI has been found at times to be unfair to workers. Unfairness toward workers has been associated with decreased worker effort and increased worker turnover. To avoid such problems, AI systems must be designed to support fairness and redress instances of unfairness. Despite the attention related to AI unfairness, there has not been a theoretical and systematic approach to developing a design agenda. This paper addresses the issue in three ways. First, we introduce the organizational justice theory, three different fairness types (distributive, procedural, interactional), and the frameworks for redressing instances of unfairness (retributive justice, restorative justice). Second, we review the design literature that specifically focuses on issues of AI fairness in organizations. Third, we propose a design agenda for AI fairness in organizations that applies each of the fairness types to organizational scenarios. Then, the paper concludes with implications for future research.
rate research
Read More
Non-experts have long made important contributions to machine learning (ML) by contributing training data, and recent work has shown that non-experts can also help with feature engineering by suggesting novel predictive features. However, non-experts have only contributed features to prediction tasks already posed by experienced ML practitioners. Here we study how non-experts can design prediction tasks themselves, what types of tasks non-experts will design, and whether predictive models can be automatically trained on data sourced for their tasks. We use a crowdsourcing platform where non-experts design predictive tasks that are then categorized and ranked by the crowd. Crowdsourced data are collected for top-ranked tasks and predictive models are then trained and evaluated automatically using those data. We show that individuals without ML experience can collectively construct useful datasets and that predictive models can be learned on these datasets, but challenges remain. The prediction tasks designed by non-experts covered a broad range of domains, from politics and current events to health behavior, demographics, and more. Proper instructions are crucial for non-experts, so we also conducted a randomized trial to understand how different instructions may influence the types of prediction tasks being proposed. In general, understanding better how non-experts can contribute to ML can further leverage advances in Automatic ML and has important implications as ML continues to drive workplace automation.
Tracking suspected cases of COVID-19 is crucial to suppressing the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. Active monitoring and proactive inspection are indispensable to mitigate COVID-19 spread, though these require considerable social and economic expense. To address this issue, we introduce CareCall, a call-based dialog agent which is deployed for active monitoring in Korea and Japan. We describe our system with a case study with statistics to show how the system works. Finally, we discuss a simple idea which uses CareCall to support proactive inspection.
Explainability of AI systems is critical for users to take informed actions and hold systems accountable. While opening the opaque box is important, understanding who opens the box can govern if the Human-AI interaction is effective. In this paper, we conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups of whos--people with and without a background in AI--perceive different types of AI explanations. These groups were chosen to look at how disparities in AI backgrounds can exacerbate the creator-consumer gap. We quantitatively share what the perceptions are along five dimensions: confidence, intelligence, understandability, second chance, and friendliness. Qualitatively, we highlight how the AI background influences each groups interpretations and elucidate why the differences might exist through the lenses of appropriation and cognitive heuristics. We find that (1) both groups had unwarranted faith in numbers, to different extents and for different reasons, (2) each group found explanatory values in different explanations that went beyond the usage we designed them for, and (3) each group had different requirements of what counts as humanlike explanations. Using our findings, we discuss potential negative consequences such as harmful manipulation of user trust and propose design interventions to mitigate them. By bringing conscious awareness to how and why AI backgrounds shape perceptions of potential creators and consumers in XAI, our work takes a formative step in advancing a pluralistic Human-centered Explainable AI discourse.
Personality has been identified as a vital factor in understanding the quality of human robot interactions. Despite this the research in this area remains fragmented and lacks a coherent framework. This makes it difficult to understand what we know and identify what we do not. As a result our knowledge of personality in human robot interactions has not kept pace with the deployment of robots in organizations or in our broader society. To address this shortcoming, this paper reviews 83 articles and 84 separate studies to assess the current state of human robot personality research. This review: (1) highlights major thematic research areas, (2) identifies gaps in the literature, (3) derives and presents major conclusions from the literature and (4) offers guidance for future research.
AI has provided us with the ability to automate tasks, extract information from vast amounts of data, and synthesize media that is nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. However, positive tools can also be used for negative purposes. In particular, cyber adversaries can use AI (such as machine learning) to enhance their attacks and expand their campaigns. Although offensive AI has been discussed in the past, there is a need to analyze and understand the threat in the context of organizations. For example, how does an AI-capable adversary impact the cyber kill chain? Does AI benefit the attacker more than the defender? What are the most significant AI threats facing organizations today and what will be their impact on the future? In this survey, we explore the threat of offensive AI on organizations. First, we present the background and discuss how AI changes the adversarys methods, strategies, goals, and overall attack model. Then, through a literature review, we identify 33 offensive AI capabilities which adversaries can use to enhance their attacks. Finally, through a user study spanning industry and academia, we rank the AI threats and provide insights on the adversaries.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
