Related papers: Give Me Convenience and Give Her Death: Who Should Decide What Uses of NLP are Appropriate, and on What Basis?

Give Me Convenience and Give Her Death: Who Should Decide What Uses of NLP are Appropriate, and on What Basis?

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.13213v1
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 07:31:57 GMT
Title: Give Me Convenience and Give Her Death: Who Should Decide What Uses of NLP are Appropriate, and on What Basis?
Authors: Kobi Leins and Jey Han Lau and Timothy Baldwin
Abstract summary: We discuss whether datasets and tasks should be deemed off-limits for NLP research. We focus in particular on the role of data statements in ethically assessing research. We examine the outcomes of similar debates in other scientific disciplines.
Score: 40.75458460149429
License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Abstract: As part of growing NLP capabilities, coupled with an awareness of the ethical dimensions of research, questions have been raised about whether particular datasets and tasks should be deemed off-limits for NLP research. We examine this question with respect to a paper on automatic legal sentencing from EMNLP 2019 which was a source of some debate, in asking whether the paper should have been allowed to be published, who should have been charged with making such a decision, and on what basis. We focus in particular on the role of data statements in ethically assessing research, but also discuss the topic of dual use, and examine the outcomes of similar debates in other scientific disciplines.

Related papers

The Nature of NLP: Analyzing Contributions in NLP Papers [77.31665252336157]
We quantitatively investigate what constitutes NLP research by examining research papers. Our findings reveal a rising involvement of machine learning in NLP since the early nineties. In post-2020, there has been a resurgence of focus on language and people.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-29T01:29:28Z)
What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review? [173.8912784451817]
In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-10T16:06:43Z)
Time to Stop and Think: What kind of research do we want to do? [1.74048653626208]
In this paper, we focus on the field of metaheuristic optimization, since it is our main field of work. Our main goal is to sew the seed of sincere critical assessment of our work, sparking a reflection process both at the individual and the community level. All the statements included in this document are personal views and opinions, which can be shared by others or not.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-13T08:53:57Z)
Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices [89.85174013619883]
We focus on text summarization, a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-18T15:35:36Z)
SemEval-2023 Task 11: Learning With Disagreements (LeWiDi) [75.85548747729466]
We report on the second edition of the LeWiDi series of shared tasks. This second edition attracted a wide array of participants resulting in 13 shared task submission papers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-28T12:20:35Z)
Thorny Roses: Investigating the Dual Use Dilemma in Natural Language Processing [45.72382504913193]
We conduct a survey of NLP researchers and practitioners to understand the depth and their perspective of the problem. Based on the results of our survey, we offer a definition of dual use that is tailored to the needs of the NLP community. We discuss the current state and potential means for mitigating dual use in NLP and propose a checklist that can be integrated into existing conference ethics-frameworks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-17T14:37:43Z)
Is there an Ethical Operational Research? [0.0]
The paper addresses the question of whether there exists an "Ethical Operational Research" It identifies the ethical questions which are specific to our professional community and suggests research topics which, although independently developed, are relevant for handling such questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-07T18:29:04Z)
Use of Formal Ethical Reviews in NLP Literature: Historical Trends and Current Practices [6.195761193461355]
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. With the rising concerns and discourse around the ethics of NLP, do we also observe a rise in formal ethical reviews of NLP studies?
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-02T12:12:59Z)
Ethical issues with using Internet of Things devices in citizen science research: A scoping review [1.933681537640272]
This chapter presents a scoping review of published scientific studies that utilise both citizen scientists and Internet of Things devices. We selected studies where the authors had included at least a short discussion of the ethical issues encountered during the research process. Following this analysis, our discussion provides recommendations for researchers who wish to integrate citizen scientists and Internet of Things devices into their research.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-07-18T12:22:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.