Steering Responsible AI: A Case for Algorithmic Pluralism

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12010v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:45:04 GMT
• Title: Steering Responsible AI: A Case for Algorithmic Pluralism
• Authors: Stefaan G. Verhulst
• Abstract summary: I suggest examining further the notion of algorithmic pluralism. I argue, algorithmic pluralism has the potential to sustain the diversity, multiplicity, and inclusiveness that are so vital to democracy.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, I examine questions surrounding AI neutrality through the prism of existing literature and scholarship about mediation and media pluralism. Such traditions, I argue, provide a valuable theoretical framework for how we should approach the (likely) impending era of AI mediation. In particular, I suggest examining further the notion of algorithmic pluralism. Contrasting this notion to the dominant idea of algorithmic transparency, I seek to describe what algorithmic pluralism may be, and present both its opportunities and challenges. Implemented thoughtfully and responsibly, I argue, Algorithmic or AI pluralism has the potential to sustain the diversity, multiplicity, and inclusiveness that are so vital to democracy.

Related papers

• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• From Experts to the Public: Governing Multimodal Language Models in Politically Sensitive Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  This paper examines the governance of large language models (MM-LLMs) through individual and collective deliberation. We conducted a two-step study: first, interviews with 10 journalists established a baseline understanding of expert video interpretation; second, 114 individuals from the general public engaged in deliberation using Inclusive.AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment [49.29107308098236]
  We propose a roadmap to pluralistic alignment, specifically using language models as a test bed. We identify and formalize three possible ways to define and operationalize pluralism in AI systems. We argue that current alignment techniques may be fundamentally limited for pluralistic AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T18:21:17Z)
• Algorithmic Pluralism: A Structural Approach To Equal Opportunity [0.4954041894944345]
  We argue that there must be a pluralism of opportunity available to many different individuals in order to promote equal opportunity in a systemic way. We show how this framework has several implications for system design and regulation through current debates about equal opportunity in algorithmic hiring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-14T13:37:17Z)
• 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)
• Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework [0.0]
  Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) hold the promise of transforming government. It is critical that new AI systems behave in alignment with the normative expectations of society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T10:57:20Z)
• 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)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Towards Algorithmic Transparency: A Diversity Perspective [8.138520743045731]
  Research on algorithmic bias has exploded in recent years, highlighting both the problems of bias, and the potential solutions. Transparency is important for facilitating fairness management as well as explainability in algorithms. We reflect on the relationship between diversity and bias, arguing that diversity drives the need for transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T17:28:12Z)

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.