Recentering Validity Considerations through Early-Stage Deliberations Around AI and Policy Design

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14602v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 01:50:40 GMT
• Title: Recentering Validity Considerations through Early-Stage Deliberations Around AI and Policy Design
• Authors: Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Haiyi Zhu, Hoda Heidari, Kenneth Holstein
• Abstract summary: A growing body of research has called for increased scrutiny around the validity of AI system designs. In real-world settings, it is often not possible to fully address questions around the validity of an AI tool without also considering the design of associated organizational and public policies.
• Score: 20.158252022235104
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI-based decision-making tools are rapidly spreading across a range of real-world, complex domains like healthcare, criminal justice, and child welfare. A growing body of research has called for increased scrutiny around the validity of AI system designs. However, in real-world settings, it is often not possible to fully address questions around the validity of an AI tool without also considering the design of associated organizational and public policies. Yet, considerations around how an AI tool may interface with policy are often only discussed retrospectively, after the tool is designed or deployed. In this short position paper, we discuss opportunities to promote multi-stakeholder deliberations around the design of AI-based technologies and associated policies, at the earliest stages of a new project.

Related papers

• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Towards a Privacy and Security-Aware Framework for Ethical AI: Guiding the Development and Assessment of AI Systems [0.0]
  This study conducts a systematic literature review spanning the years 2020 to 2023. Through the synthesis of knowledge extracted from the SLR, this study presents a conceptual framework tailored for privacy- and security-aware AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T15:39:57Z)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence: A Structured Literature Review [0.0]
  The EU has recently issued several publications emphasizing the necessity of trust in AI. This highlights the urgent need for international regulation. This paper introduces a comprehensive and, to our knowledge, the first unified definition of responsible AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T17:01:13Z)
• How VADER is your AI? Towards a definition of artificial intelligence systems appropriate for regulation [41.94295877935867]
  Recent AI regulation proposals adopt AI definitions affecting ICT techniques, approaches, and systems that are not AI. We propose a framework to score how validated as appropriately-defined for regulation (VADER) an AI definition is.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T17:41:15Z)
• 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)
• AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions [20.84424818447696]
  This paper argues that a range of current AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. We define deception as the systematic inducement of false beliefs in the pursuit of some outcome other than the truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T17:59:35Z)
• An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI [64.54460979588075]
  We examine a notable yet understudied AI design process in the legal domain that took place over a decade ago. We show how an interactive simulation methodology allowed computer scientists and lawyers to become co-designers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-08T15:46:52Z)
• Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond "Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir" [76.44130385507894]
  This paper aims to ground what we dub a 'participatory turn' in AI design by synthesizing existing literature on participation and through empirical analysis of its current practices. Based on our literature synthesis and empirical research, this paper presents a conceptual framework for analyzing participatory approaches to AI design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T17:57:04Z)
• 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)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.