No Arabic abstract
The recent enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) is due principally to advances in deep learning. Deep learning methods are remarkably accurate, but also opaque, which limits their potential use in safety-critical applications. To achieve trust and accountability, designers and operators of machine learning algorithms must be able to explain the inner workings, the results and the causes of failures of algorithms to users, regulators, and citizens. The originality of this paper is to combine technical, legal and economic aspects of explainability to develop a framework for defining the right level of explain-ability in a given context. We propose three logical steps: First, define the main contextual factors, such as who the audience of the explanation is, the operational context, the level of harm that the system could cause, and the legal/regulatory framework. This step will help characterize the operational and legal needs for explanation, and the corresponding social benefits. Second, examine the technical tools available, including post hoc approaches (input perturbation, saliency maps...) and hybrid AI approaches. Third, as function of the first two steps, choose the right levels of global and local explanation outputs, taking into the account the costs involved. We identify seven kinds of costs and emphasize that explanations are socially useful only when total social benefits exceed costs.
The development of AI applications is a multidisciplinary effort, involving multiple roles collaborating with the AI developers, an umbrella term we use to include data scientists and other AI-adjacent roles on the same team. During these collaborations, there is a knowledge mismatch between AI developers, who are skilled in data science, and external stakeholders who are typically not. This difference leads to communication gaps, and the onus falls on AI developers to explain data science concepts to their collaborators. In this paper, we report on a study including analyses of both interviews with AI developers and artifacts they produced for communication. Using the analytic lens of shared mental models, we report on the types of communication gaps that AI developers face, how AI developers communicate across disciplinary and organizational boundaries, and how they simultaneously manage issues regarding trust and expectations.
Algorithmic systems are increasingly deployed to make decisions in many areas of peoples lives. The shift from human to algorithmic decision-making has been accompanied by concern about potentially opaque decisions that are not aligned with social values, as well as proposed remedies such as explainability. We present results of a qualitative study of algorithmic decision-making, comprised of five workshops conducted with a total of 60 participants in Finland, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We invited participants to reason about decision-making qualities such as explainability and accuracy in a variety of domains. Participants viewed AI as a decision-maker that follows rigid criteria and performs mechanical tasks well, but is largely incapable of subjective or morally complex judgments. We discuss participants consideration of humanity in decision-making, and introduce the concept of negotiability, the ability to go beyond formal criteria and work flexibly around the system.
We regard explanations as a blending of the input sample and the models output and offer a few definitions that capture various desired properties of the function that generates these explanations. We study the links between these properties and between explanation-generating functions and intermediate representations of learned models and are able to show, for example, that if the activations of a given layer are consistent with an explanation, then so do all other subsequent layers. In addition, we study the intersection and union of explanations as a way to construct new explanations.
Archives play a crucial role in the construction and advancement of society. Humans place a great deal of trust in archives and depend on them to craft public policies and to preserve languages, cultures, self-identity, views and values. Yet, there are certain voices and viewpoints that remain elusive in the current processes deployed in the classification and discoverability of records and archives. In this paper, we explore the ramifications and effects of centralized, due process archival systems on marginalized communities. There is strong evidence to prove the need for progressive design and technological innovation while in the pursuit of comprehensiveness, equity and justice. Intentionality and comprehensiveness is our greatest opportunity when it comes to improving archival practices and for the advancement and thrive-ability of societies at large today. Intentionality and comprehensiveness is achievable with the support of technology and the Information Age we live in today. Reopening, questioning and/or purposefully including others voices in archival processes is the intention we present in our paper. We provide examples of marginalized communities who continue to lead community archive movements in efforts to reclaim and protect their cultural identity, knowledge, views and futures. In conclusion, we offer design and AI-dominant technological considerations worth further investigation in efforts to bridge systemic gaps and build robust archival processes.
In the age of Artificial Intelligence and automation, machines have taken over many key managerial tasks. Replacing managers with AI systems may have a negative impact on workers outcomes. It is unclear if workers receive the same benefits from their relationships with AI systems, raising the question: What degree does the relationship between AI systems and workers impact worker outcomes? We draw on IT identity to understand the influence of identification with AI systems on job performance. From this theoretical perspective, we propose a research model and conduct a survey of 97 MTurk workers to test the model. The findings reveal that work role identity and organizational identity are key determinants of identification with AI systems. Furthermore, the findings show that identification with AI systems does increase job performance.