Tensions Between the Proxies of Human Values in AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07508v1
• Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 21:13:48 GMT
• Title: Tensions Between the Proxies of Human Values in AI
• Authors: Teresa Datta, Daniel Nissani, Max Cembalest, Akash Khanna, Haley Massa, John P. Dickerson
• Abstract summary: We argue that the AI community needs to consider all the consequences of choosing certain formulations of these pillars. We point towards sociotechnical research for frameworks for the latter, but push for broader efforts into implementing these in practice.
• Score: 20.303537771118048
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Motivated by mitigating potentially harmful impacts of technologies, the AI community has formulated and accepted mathematical definitions for certain pillars of accountability: e.g. privacy, fairness, and model transparency. Yet, we argue this is fundamentally misguided because these definitions are imperfect, siloed constructions of the human values they hope to proxy, while giving the guise that those values are sufficiently embedded in our technologies. Under popularized methods, tensions arise when practitioners attempt to achieve each pillar of fairness, privacy, and transparency in isolation or simultaneously. In this position paper, we push for redirection. We argue that the AI community needs to consider all the consequences of choosing certain formulations of these pillars -- not just the technical incompatibilities, but also the effects within the context of deployment. We point towards sociotechnical research for frameworks for the latter, but push for broader efforts into implementing these in practice.

Related papers

• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• Empirical AI Ethics: Reconfiguring Ethics towards a Situated, Plural, and Transformative Approach [0.0]
  Critics argue that AI ethics frequently serves corporate interests through practices of 'ethics washing'<n>This paper adopts a Science and Technology Studies perspective to critically interrogate the field of AI ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T12:58:15Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Infrastructuring Contestability: A Framework for Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism [0.0]
  The proliferation of AI-driven systems presents a challenge to Human-Computer Interaction and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work.<n>Current approaches to value alignment, which rely on centralized, top-down definitions, lack the mechanisms for meaningful contestability.<n>This paper introduces Community-Defined AI Value Pluralism, a socio-technical framework that addresses this gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T16:45:50Z)
• Rigor in AI: Doing Rigorous AI Work Requires a Broader, Responsible AI-Informed Conception of Rigor [83.99510317617694]
  We argue that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed.<n>We aim to provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:44:41Z)
• Algorithmic Fairness: Not a Purely Technical but Socio-Technical Property [4.2894701473635966]
  We argue that fairness cannot be reduced to purely technical constraints on models.<n>We examine the limitations of existing fairness measures through conceptual analysis and empirical illustrations.<n>We believe these findings will help bridge the gap between technical formalisation and social realities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T15:54:45Z)
• Achieving Socio-Economic Parity through the Lens of EU AI Act [11.550643687258738]
  Unfair treatment and discrimination are critical ethical concerns in AI systems. The recent introduction of the EU AI Act establishes a unified legal framework to ensure legal certainty for AI innovation and investment. We propose a novel fairness notion, Socio-Economic Parity (SEP), which incorporates Socio-Economic Status (SES) and promotes positive actions for underprivileged groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T12:27:27Z)
• Political Neutrality in AI is Impossible- But Here is How to Approximate it [97.59456676216115]
  We argue that true political neutrality is neither feasible nor universally desirable due to its subjective nature and the biases inherent in AI training data, algorithms, and user interactions. We use the term "approximation" of political neutrality to shift the focus from unattainable absolutes to achievable, practical proxies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T16:48:04Z)
• Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment [15.878773061188516]
  We characterize and challenge the preferentist approach to AI alignment. We show how preferences fail to capture the thick semantic content of human values. We argue that AI systems should be aligned with normative standards appropriate to their social roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T03:14:20Z)
• Crossing the principle-practice gap in AI ethics with ethical problem-solving [0.0]
  How to bridge the principle-practice gap separating ethical discourse from the technical side of AI development remains an open problem. EPS is a methodology promoting responsible, human-centric, and value-oriented AI development. We utilize EPS as a blueprint to propose the implementation of Ethics as a Service Platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T14:35:13Z)
• Disciplining Deliberation: A Sociotechnical Perspective on Machine Learning Trade-offs [0.0]
  Two prominent trade-offs in artificial intelligence are between predictive accuracy and fairness, and between predictive accuracy and interpretability. prevailing interpretation views these formal trade-offs as directly corresponding to tensions between underlying social values. I introduce a sociotechnical approach to examining the value implications of trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T05:03:18Z)
• 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)
• Predictable Artificial Intelligence [77.1127726638209]
  This paper introduces the ideas and challenges of Predictable AI. It explores the ways in which we can anticipate key validity indicators of present and future AI ecosystems. We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z)
• On the meaning of uncertainty for ethical AI: philosophy and practice [10.591284030838146]
  We argue that this is a significant way to bring ethical considerations into mathematical reasoning. We demonstrate these ideas within the context of competing models used to advise the UK government on the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 during December 2021.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T15:13:36Z)
• Human Values in Multiagent Systems [3.5027291542274357]
  This paper presents a formal representation of values, grounded in the social sciences. We use this formal representation to articulate the key challenges for achieving value-aligned behaviour in multiagent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T11:23:59Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI development [8.131948859165432]
  This work reveals for the first time how voluntary commitments, with sanctions either by peers or an institution, leads to socially beneficial outcomes. Results are directly relevant for the design of governance and regulatory policies that aim to ensure an ethical and responsible AI technology development process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-08T12:54:56Z)

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.