11 research outputs found

    Does the End Justify the Means?:On the Moral Justification of Fairness-Aware Machine Learning

    Get PDF
    Despite an abundance of fairness-aware machine learning (fair-ml) algorithms, the moral justification of how these algorithms enforce fairness metrics is largely unexplored. The goal of this paper is to elicit the moral implications of a fair-ml algorithm. To this end, we first consider the moral justification of the fairness metrics for which the algorithm optimizes. We present an extension of previous work to arrive at three propositions that can justify the fairness metrics. Different from previous work, our extension highlights that the consequences of predicted outcomes are important for judging fairness. We draw from the extended framework and empirical ethics to identify moral implications of the fair-ml algorithm. We focus on the two optimization strategies inherent to the algorithm: group-specific decision thresholds and randomized decision thresholds. We argue that the justification of the algorithm can differ depending on one's assumptions about the (social) context in which the algorithm is applied - even if the associated fairness metric is the same. Finally, we sketch paths for future work towards a more complete evaluation of fair-ml algorithms, beyond their direct optimization objectives

    Using a Cognitive Architecture to consider antiblackness in design and development of AI systems

    Full text link
    How might we use cognitive modeling to consider the ways in which antiblackness, and racism more broadly, impact the design and development of AI systems? We provide a discussion and an example towards an answer to this question. We use the ACT-R/{\Phi} cognitive architecture and an existing knowledge graph system, ConceptNet, to consider this question not only from a cognitive and sociocultural perspective, but also from a physiological perspective. In addition to using a cognitive modeling as a means to explore how antiblackness may manifest in the design and development of AI systems (particularly from a software engineering perspective), we also introduce connections between antiblackness, the Human, and computational cognitive modeling. We argue that the typical eschewing of sociocultural processes and knowledge structures in cognitive architectures and cognitive modeling implicitly furthers a colorblind approach to cognitive modeling and hides sociocultural context that is always present in human behavior and affects cognitive processes.Comment: To be published in ICCM Conference proceedings. 8 Pages, 1 figur

    Streamlining models with explanations in the learning loop

    Get PDF
    Several explainable AI methods allow a Machine Learning user to get insights on the classification process of a black-box model in the form of local linear explanations. With such information, the user can judge which features are locally relevant for the classification outcome, and get an understanding of how the model reasons. Standard supervised learning processes are purely driven by the original features and target labels, without any feedback loop informed by the local relevance of the features identified by the post-hoc explanations. In this paper, we exploit this newly obtained information to design a feature engineering phase, where we combine explanations with feature values. To do so, we develop two different strategies, named Iterative Dataset Weighting and Targeted Replacement Values, which generate streamlined models that better mimic the explanation process presented to the user. We show how these streamlined models compare to the original black-box classifiers, in terms of accuracy and compactness of the newly produced explanations.Comment: 16 pages, 10 figures, available repositor

    Normative Ethics Principles for Responsible AI Systems: Taxonomy and Future Directions

    Full text link
    The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) necessitates careful analysis of its ethical implications. In addressing ethics and fairness implications, it is important to examine the whole range of ethically relevant features rather than looking at individual agents alone. This can be accomplished by shifting perspective to the systems in which agents are embedded, which is encapsulated in the macro ethics of sociotechnical systems (STS). Through the lens of macro ethics, the governance of systems - which is where participants try to promote outcomes and norms which reflect their values - is key. However, multiple-user social dilemmas arise in an STS when stakeholders of the STS have different value preferences or when norms in the STS conflict. To develop equitable governance which meets the needs of different stakeholders, and resolve these dilemmas in satisfactory ways with a higher goal of fairness, we need to integrate a variety of normative ethical principles in reasoning. Normative ethical principles are understood as operationalizable rules inferred from philosophical theories. A taxonomy of ethical principles is thus beneficial to enable practitioners to utilise them in reasoning. This work develops a taxonomy of normative ethical principles which can be operationalized in the governance of STS. We identify an array of ethical principles, with 25 nodes on the taxonomy tree. We describe the ways in which each principle has previously been operationalized, and suggest how the operationalization of principles may be applied to the macro ethics of STS. We further explain potential difficulties that may arise with each principle. We envision this taxonomy will facilitate the development of methodologies to incorporate ethical principles in reasoning capacities for governing equitable STS

    Manifestations of Xenophobia in AI Systems

    Full text link
    Xenophobia is one of the key drivers of marginalisation, discrimination, and conflict, yet many prominent machine learning (ML) fairness frameworks fail to comprehensively measure or mitigate the resulting xenophobic harms. Here we aim to bridge this conceptual gap and help facilitate safe and ethical design of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions. We ground our analysis of the impact of xenophobia by first identifying distinct types of xenophobic harms, and then applying this framework across a number of prominent AI application domains, reviewing the potential interplay between AI and xenophobia on social media and recommendation systems, healthcare, immigration, employment, as well as biases in large pre-trained models. These help inform our recommendations towards an inclusive, xenophilic design of future AI systems
    corecore