The Forgotten Margins of AI Ethics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.04221v1
• Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 12:16:29 GMT
• Title: The Forgotten Margins of AI Ethics
• Authors: Abeba Birhane, Elayne Ruane, Thomas Laurent, Matthew S. Brown, Johnathan Flowers, Anthony Ventresque, Christopher L. Dancy
• Abstract summary: We read and annotated peer-reviewed papers published over the past four years in two premier conferences: FAccT and AIES. We note that although the goals of the majority of FAccT and AIES papers were often commendable, their consideration of the negative impacts of AI on traditionally marginalized groups remained shallow.
• Score: 4.150076021042422
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: How has recent AI Ethics literature addressed topics such as fairness and justice in the context of continued social and structural power asymmetries? We trace both the historical roots and current landmark work that have been shaping the field and categorize these works under three broad umbrellas: (i) those grounded in Western canonical philosophy, (ii) mathematical and statistical methods, and (iii) those emerging from critical data/algorithm/information studies. We also survey the field and explore emerging trends by examining the rapidly growing body of literature that falls under the broad umbrella of AI Ethics. To that end, we read and annotated peer-reviewed papers published over the past four years in two premier conferences: FAccT and AIES. We organize the literature based on an annotation scheme we developed according to three main dimensions: whether the paper deals with concrete applications, use-cases, and/or people's lived experience; to what extent it addresses harmed, threatened, or otherwise marginalized groups; and if so, whether it explicitly names such groups. We note that although the goals of the majority of FAccT and AIES papers were often commendable, their consideration of the negative impacts of AI on traditionally marginalized groups remained shallow. Taken together, our conceptual analysis and the data from annotated papers indicate that the field would benefit from an increased focus on ethical analysis grounded in concrete use-cases, people's experiences, and applications as well as from approaches that are sensitive to structural and historical power asymmetries.

Related papers

• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Exploring the Power of Topic Modeling Techniques in Analyzing Customer Reviews: A Comparative Analysis [0.0]
  Machine learning and natural language processing algorithms have been deployed to analyze the vast amount of textual data available online. In this study, we examine and compare five frequently used topic modeling methods specifically applied to customer reviews. Our findings reveal that BERTopic consistently yield more meaningful extracted topics and achieve favorable results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T08:18:04Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Bias, diversity, and challenges to fairness in classification and automated text analysis. From libraries to AI and back [3.9198548406564604]
  We investigate the risks surrounding bias and unfairness in AI usage in classification and automated text analysis. We take a closer look at the notion of '(un)fairness' in relation to the notion of 'diversity'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T20:54:49Z)
• The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Research [6.11644847221881]
  We analyze 100 highly cited machine learning papers published at premier conferences, ICML and NeurIPS. We identify 67 values that are uplifted in machine learning research. We find increasingly close ties between these highly cited papers and tech companies and elite universities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T17:24:14Z)
• Author Clustering and Topic Estimation for Short Texts [69.54017251622211]
  We propose a novel model that expands on the Latent Dirichlet Allocation by modeling strong dependence among the words in the same document. We also simultaneously cluster users, removing the need for post-hoc cluster estimation. Our method performs as well as -- or better -- than traditional approaches to problems arising in short text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-15T20:55:55Z)
• What's New? Summarizing Contributions in Scientific Literature [85.95906677964815]
  We introduce a new task of disentangled paper summarization, which seeks to generate separate summaries for the paper contributions and the context of the work. We extend the S2ORC corpus of academic articles by adding disentangled "contribution" and "context" reference labels. We propose a comprehensive automatic evaluation protocol which reports the relevance, novelty, and disentanglement of generated outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-06T02:23:01Z)

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.