اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدEthical Questions in NLP Research: The (Mis)-Use of Forensic Linguistics
112
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Ideas from forensic linguistics are now being used frequently in Natural Language Processing (NLP), using machine learning techniques. While the role of forensic linguistics was more benign earlier, it is now being used for purposes which are questionable. Certain methods from forensic linguistics are employed, without considering their scientific limitations and ethical concerns. While we take the specific case of forensic linguistics as an example of such trends in NLP and machine learning, the issue is a larger one and present in many other scientific and data-driven domains. We suggest that such trends indicate that some of the applied sciences are exceeding their legal and scientific briefs. We highlight how carelessly implemented practices are serving to short-circuit the due processes of law as well breach ethical codes.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
Ethical aspects of research in language technologies have received much attention recently. It is a standard practice to get a study involving human subjects reviewed and approved by a professional ethics committee/board of the institution. How commo
nly do we see mention of ethical approvals in NLP research? What types of research or aspects of studies are usually subject to such reviews? With the rising concerns and discourse around the ethics of NLP, do we also observe a rise in formal ethical reviews of NLP studies? And, if so, would this imply that there is a heightened awareness of ethical issues that was previously lacking? We aim to address these questions by conducting a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the ACL Anthology, as well as comparing the trends in our field to those of other related disciplines, such as cognitive science, machine learning, data mining, and systems.
Plumitifs (dockets) were initially a tool for law clerks. Nowadays, they are used as summaries presenting all the steps of a judicial case. Information concerning parties identity, jurisdiction in charge of administering the case, and some informatio
n relating to the nature and the course of the preceding are available through plumitifs. They are publicly accessible but barely understandable; they are written using abbreviations and referring to provisions from the Criminal Code of Canada, which makes them hard to reason about. In this paper, we propose a simple yet efficient multi-source language generation architecture that leverages both the plumitif and the Criminal Codes content to generate intelligible plumitifs descriptions. It goes without saying that ethical considerations rise with these sensitive documents made readable and available at scale, legitimate concerns that we address in this paper.
We survey 146 papers analyzing bias in NLP systems, finding that their motivations are often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative reasoning, despite the fact that analyzing bias is an inherently normative process. We further find that these
papers proposed quantitative techniques for measuring or mitigating bias are poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage with the relevant literature outside of NLP. Based on these findings, we describe the beginnings of a path forward by proposing three recommendations that should guide work analyzing bias in NLP systems. These recommendations rest on a greater recognition of the relationships between language and social hierarchies, encouraging researchers and practitioners to articulate their conceptualizations of bias---i.e., what kinds of system behaviors are harmful, in what ways, to whom, and why, as well as the normative reasoning underlying these statements---and to center work around the lived experiences of members of communities affected by NLP systems, while interrogating and reimagining the power relations between technologists and such communities.
We introduce PyText - a deep learning based NLP modeling framework built on PyTorch. PyText addresses the often-conflicting requirements of enabling rapid experimentation and of serving models at scale. It achieves this by providing simple and extens
ible interfaces for model components, and by using PyTorchs capabilities of exporting models for inference via the optimized Caffe2 execution engine. We report our own experience of migrating experimentation and production workflows to PyText, which enabled us to iterate faster on novel modeling ideas and then seamlessly ship them at industrial scale.
Readers of academic research papers often read with the goal of answering specific questions. Question Answering systems that can answer those questions can make consumption of the content much more efficient. However, building such tools requires da
ta that reflect the difficulty of the task arising from complex reasoning about claims made in multiple parts of a paper. In contrast, existing information-seeking question answering datasets usually contain questions about generic factoid-type information. We therefore present QASPER, a dataset of 5,049 questions over 1,585 Natural Language Processing papers. Each question is written by an NLP practitioner who read only the title and abstract of the corresponding paper, and the question seeks information present in the full text. The questions are then answered by a separate set of NLP practitioners who also provide supporting evidence to answers. We find that existing models that do well on other QA tasks do not perform well on answering these questions, underperforming humans by at least 27 F1 points when answering them from entire papers, motivating further research in document-grounded, information-seeking QA, which our dataset is designed to facilitate.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
