اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدAlgorithmic Injustices: Towards a Relational Ethics
70
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
It has become trivial to point out how decision-making processes in various social, political and economical sphere are assisted by automated systems. Improved efficiency, the hallmark of these systems, drives the mass scale integration of automated systems into daily life. However, as a robust body of research in the area of algorithmic injustice shows, algorithmic tools embed and perpetuate societal and historical biases and injustice. In particular, a persistent recurring trend within the literature indicates that societys most vulnerable are disproportionally impacted. When algorithmic injustice and bias is brought to the fore, most of the solutions on offer 1) revolve around technical solutions and 2) do not focus centre disproportionally impacted groups. This paper zooms out and draws the bigger picture. It 1) argues that concerns surrounding algorithmic decision making and algorithmic injustice require fundamental rethinking above and beyond technical solutions, and 2) outlines a way forward in a manner that centres vulnerable groups through the lens of relational ethics.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
As the role of algorithmic systems and processes increases in society, so does the risk of bias, which can result in discrimination against individuals and social groups. Research on algorithmic bias has exploded in recent years, highlighting both th
e problems of bias, and the potential solutions, in terms of algorithmic transparency (AT). Transparency is important for facilitating fairness management as well as explainability in algorithms; however, the concept of diversity, and its relationship to bias and transparency, has been largely left out of the discussion. We reflect on the relationship between diversity and bias, arguing that diversity drives the need for transparency. Using a perspective-taking lens, which takes diversity as a given, we propose a conceptual framework to characterize the problem and solution spaces of AT, to aid its application in algorithmic systems. Example cases from three research domains are described using our framework.
Increasingly, scholars seek to integrate legal and technological insights to combat bias in AI systems. In recent years, many different definitions for ensuring non-discrimination in algorithmic decision systems have been put forward. In this paper,
we first briefly describe the EU law framework covering cases of algorithmic discrimination. Second, we present an algorithm that harnesses optimal transport to provide a flexible framework to interpolate between different fairness definitions. Third, we show that important normative and legal challenges remain for the implementation of algorithmic fairness interventions in real-world scenarios. Overall, the paper seeks to contribute to the quest for flexible technical frameworks that can be adapted to varying legal and normative fairness constraints.
Ethics in AI becomes a global topic of interest for both policymakers and academic researchers. In the last few years, various research organizations, lawyers, think tankers and regulatory bodies get involved in developing AI ethics guidelines and pr
inciples. However, there is still debate about the implications of these principles. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) study to investigate the agreement on the significance of AI principles and identify the challenging factors that could negatively impact the adoption of AI ethics principles. The results reveal that the global convergence set consists of 22 ethical principles and 15 challenges. Transparency, privacy, accountability and fairness are identified as the most common AI ethics principles. Similarly, lack of ethical knowledge and vague principles are reported as the significant challenges for considering ethics in AI. The findings of this study are the preliminary inputs for proposing a maturity model that assess the ethical capabilities of AI systems and provide best practices for further improvements.
Making conjectures about future consequences of a technology is an exercise in trying to reduce various forms of uncertainty. Both to produce and reason about these conjectures requires understanding their potential limitations. In other words, we ne
ed systematic ways of considering uncertainty associated with given conjectures for downstream consequences. In this work, we frame the task of considering future consequences as an anticipatory ethics problem, where the goal is to develop scenarios that reflect plausible outcomes and their ethical implications following a technologys introduction into society. In order to shed light on how various forms of uncertainty might inform how we reason about a resulting scenario, we provide a characterization of the types of uncertainty that arise in a potential scenario-building process.
Activists, journalists, and scholars have long raised critical questions about the relationship between diversity, representation, and structural exclusions in data-intensive tools and services. We build on work mapping the emergent landscape of corp
orate AI ethics to center one outcome of these conversations: the incorporation of diversity and inclusion in corporate AI ethics activities. Using interpretive document analysis and analytic tools from the values in design field, we examine how diversity and inclusion work is articulated in public-facing AI ethics documentation produced by three companies that create application and services layer AI infrastructure: Google, Microsoft, and Salesforce. We find that as these documents make diversity and inclusion more tractable to engineers and technical clients, they reveal a drift away from civil rights justifications that resonates with the managerialization of diversity by corporations in the mid-1980s. The focus on technical artifacts, such as diverse and inclusive datasets, and the replacement of equity with fairness make ethical work more actionable for everyday practitioners. Yet, they appear divorced from broader DEI initiatives and other subject matter experts that could provide needed context to nuanced decisions around how to operationalize these values. Finally, diversity and inclusion, as configured by engineering logic, positions firms not as ethics owners but as ethics allocators; while these companies claim expertise on AI ethics, the responsibility of defining who diversity and inclusion are meant to protect and where it is relevant is pushed downstream to their customers.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
