-
Beneficent Intelligence: A Capability Approach to Modeling Benefit, Assistance, and Associated Moral Failures through AI Systems
Authors:
Alex John London,
Hoda Heidari
Abstract:
The prevailing discourse around AI ethics lacks the language and formalism necessary to capture the diverse ethical concerns that emerge when AI systems interact with individuals. Drawing on Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach, we present a framework formalizing a network of ethical concepts and entitlements necessary for AI systems to confer meaningful benefit or assistance to stakeholders. Su…
▽ More
The prevailing discourse around AI ethics lacks the language and formalism necessary to capture the diverse ethical concerns that emerge when AI systems interact with individuals. Drawing on Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach, we present a framework formalizing a network of ethical concepts and entitlements necessary for AI systems to confer meaningful benefit or assistance to stakeholders. Such systems enhance stakeholders' ability to advance their life plans and well-being while upholding their fundamental rights. We characterize two necessary conditions for morally permissible interactions between AI systems and those impacted by their functioning, and two sufficient conditions for realizing the ideal of meaningful benefit. We then contrast this ideal with several salient failure modes, namely, forms of social interactions that constitute unjustified paternalism, coercion, deception, exploitation and domination. The proliferation of incidents involving AI in high-stakes domains underscores the gravity of these issues and the imperative to take an ethics-led approach to AI systems from their inception.
△ Less
Submitted 6 September, 2023; v1 submitted 1 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
Resolving the Human Subjects Status of Machine Learning's Crowdworkers
Authors:
Divyansh Kaushik,
Zachary C. Lipton,
Alex John London
Abstract:
In recent years, machine learning (ML) has relied heavily on crowdworkers both for building datasets and for addressing research questions requiring human interaction or judgment. The diverse tasks performed and uses of the data produced render it difficult to determine when crowdworkers are best thought of as workers (versus human subjects). These difficulties are compounded by conflicting polici…
▽ More
In recent years, machine learning (ML) has relied heavily on crowdworkers both for building datasets and for addressing research questions requiring human interaction or judgment. The diverse tasks performed and uses of the data produced render it difficult to determine when crowdworkers are best thought of as workers (versus human subjects). These difficulties are compounded by conflicting policies, with some institutions and researchers regarding all ML crowdworkers as human subjects and others holding that they rarely constitute human subjects. Notably few ML papers involving crowdwork mention IRB oversight, raising the prospect of non-compliance with ethical and regulatory requirements. We investigate the appropriate designation of ML crowdsourcing studies, focusing our inquiry on natural language processing to expose unique challenges for research oversight. Crucially, under the U.S. Common Rule, these judgments hinge on determinations of aboutness, concerning both whom (or what) the collected data is about and whom (or what) the analysis is about. We highlight two challenges posed by ML: the same set of workers can serve multiple roles and provide many sorts of information; and ML research tends to embrace a dynamic workflow, where research questions are seldom stated ex ante and data sharing opens the door for future studies to aim questions at different targets. Our analysis exposes a potential loophole in the Common Rule, where researchers can elude research ethics oversight by splitting data collection and analysis into distinct studies. Finally, we offer several policy recommendations to address these concerns.
△ Less
Submitted 15 June, 2023; v1 submitted 8 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkit
Authors:
Pedro Saleiro,
Benedict Kuester,
Loren Hinkson,
Jesse London,
Abby Stevens,
Ari Anisfeld,
Kit T. Rodolfa,
Rayid Ghani
Abstract:
Recent work has raised concerns on the risk of unintended bias in AI systems being used nowadays that can affect individuals unfairly based on race, gender or religion, among other possible characteristics. While a lot of bias metrics and fairness definitions have been proposed in recent years, there is no consensus on which metric/definition should be used and there are very few available resourc…
▽ More
Recent work has raised concerns on the risk of unintended bias in AI systems being used nowadays that can affect individuals unfairly based on race, gender or religion, among other possible characteristics. While a lot of bias metrics and fairness definitions have been proposed in recent years, there is no consensus on which metric/definition should be used and there are very few available resources to operationalize them. Therefore, despite recent awareness, auditing for bias and fairness when develo** and deploying AI systems is not yet a standard practice. We present Aequitas, an open source bias and fairness audit toolkit that is an intuitive and easy to use addition to the machine learning workflow, enabling users to seamlessly test models for several bias and fairness metrics in relation to multiple population sub-groups. Aequitas facilitates informed and equitable decisions around develo** and deploying algorithmic decision making systems for both data scientists, machine learning researchers and policymakers.
△ Less
Submitted 29 April, 2019; v1 submitted 13 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
