Anticipating Impacts: Using Large-Scale Scenario Writing to Explore Diverse Implications of Generative AI in the News Environment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06361v2
• Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:15:52 GMT
• Title: Anticipating Impacts: Using Large-Scale Scenario Writing to Explore Diverse Implications of Generative AI in the News Environment
• Authors: Kimon Kieslich, Nicholas Diakopoulos, Natali Helberger
• Abstract summary: We aim to broaden the perspective and capture the expectations of three stakeholder groups about the potential negative impacts of generative AI. We apply scenario writing and use participatory foresight to delve into cognitively diverse imaginations of the future. We conclude by discussing the usefulness of scenario-writing and participatory foresight as a toolbox for generative AI impact assessment.
• Score: 3.660182910533372
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The tremendous rise of generative AI has reached every part of society - including the news environment. There are many concerns about the individual and societal impact of the increasing use of generative AI, including issues such as disinformation and misinformation, discrimination, and the promotion of social tensions. However, research on anticipating the impact of generative AI is still in its infancy and mostly limited to the views of technology developers and/or researchers. In this paper, we aim to broaden the perspective and capture the expectations of three stakeholder groups (news consumers; technology developers; content creators) about the potential negative impacts of generative AI, as well as mitigation strategies to address these. Methodologically, we apply scenario writing and use participatory foresight in the context of a survey (n=119) to delve into cognitively diverse imaginations of the future. We qualitatively analyze the scenarios using thematic analysis to systematically map potential impacts of generative AI on the news environment, potential mitigation strategies, and the role of stakeholders in causing and mitigating these impacts. In addition, we measure respondents' opinions on a specific mitigation strategy, namely transparency obligations as suggested in Article 52 of the draft EU AI Act. We compare the results across different stakeholder groups and elaborate on the (non-) presence of different expected impacts across these groups. We conclude by discussing the usefulness of scenario-writing and participatory foresight as a toolbox for generative AI impact assessment.

Related papers

• Simulating Policy Impacts: Developing a Generative Scenario Writing Method to Evaluate the Perceived Effects of Regulation [3.2566808526538873]
  We use GPT-4 to generate scenarios both pre- and post-introduction of policy. We then run a user study to evaluate these scenarios across four risk-assessment dimensions. We find that this transparency legislation is perceived to be effective at mitigating harms in areas such as labor and well-being, but largely ineffective in areas such as social cohesion and security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-15T19:44:54Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  Particip-AI is a framework to gather current and future AI use cases and their harms and benefits from non-expert public. We gather responses from 295 demographically diverse participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• The Social Impact of Generative AI: An Analysis on ChatGPT [0.7401425472034117]
  The rapid development of Generative AI models has sparked heated discussions regarding their benefits, limitations, and associated risks. Generative models hold immense promise across multiple domains, such as healthcare, finance, and education, to cite a few. This paper adopts a methodology to delve into the societal implications of Generative AI tools, focusing primarily on the case of ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T17:14:22Z)
• Assessing AI Impact Assessments: A Classroom Study [14.768235460961876]
  Artificial Intelligence Impact Assessments ("AIIAs"), a family of tools that provide structured processes to imagine the possible impacts of a proposed AI system, have become an increasingly popular proposal to govern AI systems. Recent efforts from government or private-sector organizations have proposed many diverse instantiations of AIIAs, which take a variety of forms ranging from open-ended questionnaires to graded score-cards. We conduct a classroom study at a large research-intensive university (R1) in an elective course focused on the societal and ethical implications of AI. We find preliminary evidence that impact assessments can influence participants' perceptions of the potential
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-19T01:00:59Z)
• 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)
• Predictable Artificial Intelligence [67.79118050651908]
  We argue that achieving predictability is crucial for fostering trust, liability, control, alignment and safety of AI ecosystems. This paper aims to elucidate the questions, hypotheses and challenges relevant to Predictable AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T21:36:21Z)
• 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)
• Fairness And Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, And Mitigation Strategies [11.323961700172175]
  This survey paper offers a succinct, comprehensive overview of fairness and bias in AI. We review sources of bias, such as data, algorithm, and human decision biases. We assess the societal impact of biased AI systems, focusing on the perpetuation of inequalities and the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T03:23:55Z)
• 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)
• Unpacking the Expressed Consequences of AI Research in Broader Impact Statements [23.3030110636071]
  We present the results of a thematic analysis of a sample of statements written for the 2020 Neural Information Processing Systems conference. The themes we identify fall into categories related to how consequences are expressed and areas of impacts expressed. In light of our results, we offer perspectives on how the broader impact statement can be implemented in future iterations to better align with potential goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-11T02:57:39Z)
• Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment [71.9309995623067]
  NeurIPS 2020 requested that research paper submissions include impact statements on "potential nefarious uses and the consequences of failure" We argue that frameworks of harms must be context-aware and consider a wider range of potential stakeholders, system affordances, as well as viable proxies for assessing harms in the widest sense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-26T18:09:52Z)

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.