In Oxford Handbook on AI Governance: The Role of Workers in AI Ethics
and Governance
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07700v1
- Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:18:48 GMT
- Title: In Oxford Handbook on AI Governance: The Role of Workers in AI Ethics
and Governance
- Authors: Nataliya Nedzhvetskaya and JS Tan
- Abstract summary: This chapter looks at the role that workers play in identifying and mitigating harms from AI technologies.
There is high consensus in the AI ethics community on the benefits of reducing harms but less consensus on mechanisms for determining or addressing harms.
This chapter argues that workers occupy a unique role in identifying and mitigating harms caused by AI systems.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: While the role of states, corporations, and international organizations in AI
governance has been extensively theorized, the role of workers has received
comparatively little attention. This chapter looks at the role that workers
play in identifying and mitigating harms from AI technologies. Harms are the
causally assessed impacts of technologies. They arise despite technical
reliability and are not a result of technical negligence but rather of
normative uncertainty around questions of safety and fairness in complex social
systems. There is high consensus in the AI ethics community on the benefits of
reducing harms but less consensus on mechanisms for determining or addressing
harms. This lack of consensus has resulted in a number of collective actions by
workers protesting how harms are identified and addressed in their workplace.
We theorize the role of workers within AI governance and construct a model of
harm reporting processes in AI workplaces. The harm reporting process involves
three steps, identification, the governance decision, and the response. Workers
draw upon three types of claims to argue for jurisdiction over questions of AI
governance, subjection, control over the product of labor, and proximate
knowledge of systems. Examining the past decade of AI related worker activism
allows us to understand how different types of workers are positioned within a
workplace that produces AI systems, how their position informs their claims,
and the place of collective action in staking their claims. This chapter argues
that workers occupy a unique role in identifying and mitigating harms caused by
AI systems.
Related papers
- Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks.
We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering.
In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z) - Commercial AI, Conflict, and Moral Responsibility: A theoretical
analysis and practical approach to the moral responsibilities associated with
dual-use AI technology [2.050345881732981]
We argue that stakeholders involved in the AI system lifecycle are morally responsible for uses of their systems that are reasonably foreseeable.
We present three technically feasible actions that developers of civilian AIs can take to potentially mitigate their moral responsibility.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-30T18:09:45Z) - Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair
Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
"Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture.
This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias.
In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z) - What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical
systems [1.0549609328807565]
It is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS.
A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating.
This paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-30T13:45:36Z) - Survey on AI Ethics: A Socio-technical Perspective [0.9374652839580183]
Ethical concerns associated with AI are multifaceted, including challenging issues of fairness, privacy and data protection, responsibility and accountability, safety and robustness, transparency and explainability, and environmental impact.
This work unifies the current and future ethical concerns of deploying AI into society.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-28T21:00:56Z) - Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems.
There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them.
Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z) - Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary
Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them.
We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives.
We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z) - An Ethical Framework for Guiding the Development of Affectively-Aware
Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
We propose guidelines for evaluating the (moral and) ethical consequences of affectively-aware AI.
We propose a multi-stakeholder analysis framework that separates the ethical responsibilities of AI Developers vis-a-vis the entities that deploy such AI.
We end with recommendations for researchers, developers, operators, as well as regulators and law-makers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-07-29T03:57:53Z) - Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society.
A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests.
This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z) - The Future of Work Is Here: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to
Artificial Intelligence and Labour [0.0]
It argues that current discussions on AI and labour focus on the deployment of these technologies in the workplace.
It recommends using existing human rights frameworks for working conditions to provide more comprehensive ethical principles and regulations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-07-11T19:50:36Z) - Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable
Claims [59.64274607533249]
AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable.
This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems.
We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.