Thorny Roses: Investigating the Dual Use Dilemma in Natural Language Processing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08315v3
• Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:14:50 GMT
• Title: Thorny Roses: Investigating the Dual Use Dilemma in Natural Language Processing
• Authors: Lucie-Aim\'ee Kaffee, Arnav Arora, Zeerak Talat, Isabelle Augenstein
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 45.72382504913193
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Dual use, the intentional, harmful reuse of technology and scientific artefacts, is a problem yet to be well-defined within the context of Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, as NLP technologies continue to advance and become increasingly widespread in society, their inner workings have become increasingly opaque. Therefore, understanding dual use concerns and potential ways of limiting them is critical to minimising the potential harms of research and development. In this paper, we conduct a survey of NLP researchers and practitioners to understand the depth and their perspective of the problem as well as to assess existing available support. Based on the results of our survey, we offer a definition of dual use that is tailored to the needs of the NLP community. The survey revealed that a majority of researchers are concerned about the potential dual use of their research but only take limited action toward it. In light of the survey results, 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, e.g., the ACL ethics checklist.

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)
• 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)
• Regulation and NLP (RegNLP): Taming Large Language Models [51.41095330188972]
  We argue how NLP research can benefit from proximity to regulatory studies and adjacent fields. We advocate for the development of a new multidisciplinary research space on regulation and NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T09:22:40Z)
• What Do NLP Researchers Believe? Results of the NLP Community Metasurvey [43.763865378178245]
  We present the results of the NLP Community Metasurvey. The survey elicited opinions on controversial issues. We find false sociological beliefs where the community's predictions don't match reality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-26T19:45:51Z)
• We Need to Talk About Data: The Importance of Data Readiness in Natural Language Processing [3.096615629099618]
  We argue that there is a gap between academic research in NLP and its application to problems outside academia. We propose a method for improving the communication between researchers and external stakeholders regarding the accessibility, validity, and utility of data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-11T17:55:07Z)
• Ensuring the Inclusive Use of Natural Language Processing in the Global Response to COVID-19 [58.720142291102135]
  We discuss ways in which current and future NLP approaches can be made more inclusive by covering low-resource languages. We suggest several future directions for researchers interested in maximizing the positive societal impacts of NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T12:54:26Z)
• On the Ethical Limits of Natural Language Processing on Legal Text [9.147707153504117]
  We argue that researchers struggle when it comes to identifying ethical limits to using natural language processing systems. We place emphasis on three crucial normative parameters which have, to the best of our knowledge, been underestimated by current debates. For each of these three parameters we provide specific recommendations for the legal NLP community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-06T15:22:24Z)
• Beyond Fair Pay: Ethical Implications of NLP Crowdsourcing [7.148585157154561]
  We find that the Final Rule, the common ethical framework used by researchers, did not anticipate the use of online crowdsourcing platforms for data collection. We enumerate common scenarios where crowdworkers performing NLP tasks are at risk of harm. We recommend that researchers evaluate these risks by considering the three ethical principles set up by the Belmont Report.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-20T16:30:59Z)
• Give Me Convenience and Give Her Death: Who Should Decide What Uses of NLP are Appropriate, and on What Basis? [40.75458460149429]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-27T07:31:57Z)

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.