Beyond Fairness: Alternative Moral Dimensions for Assessing Algorithms and Designing Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12559v1
• Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:54:11 GMT
• Title: Beyond Fairness: Alternative Moral Dimensions for Assessing Algorithms and Designing Systems
• Authors: Kimi Wenzel, Geoff Kaufman, Laura Dabbish
• Abstract summary: We argue that there is an overreliance on fairness as a single dimension of morality, which comes at the expense of other important human values. We present five moral dimensions that go beyond fairness, and suggest three ways these alternative dimensions may contribute to ethical AI development.
• Score: 14.956800147435615
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has risen as an imminent concern across scholarly communities. This concern has propagated a great interest in algorithmic fairness. Large research agendas are now devoted to increasing algorithmic fairness, assessing algorithmic fairness, and understanding human perceptions of fairness. We argue that there is an overreliance on fairness as a single dimension of morality, which comes at the expense of other important human values. Drawing from moral psychology, we present five moral dimensions that go beyond fairness, and suggest three ways these alternative dimensions may contribute to ethical AI development.

Related papers

• Algorithmic Fairness in AI Surrogates for End-of-Life Decision-Making [1.049126606580198]
  Artificial intelligence surrogates are systems designed to infer preferences when individuals lose decision-making capacity.<n>Traditional algorithmic fairness frameworks are insufficient for contexts where decisions are relational, existential, and culturally diverse.<n>This paper explores an ethical framework for algorithmic fairness in AI surrogates by mapping major fairness notions onto potential real-world end-of-life scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T21:45:24Z)
• Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
  We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z)
• (Unfair) Norms in Fairness Research: A Meta-Analysis [6.395584220342517]
  We conduct a meta-analysis of algorithmic fairness papers from two leading conferences on AI fairness and ethics. Our investigation reveals two concerning trends: first, a US-centric perspective dominates throughout fairness research. Second, fairness studies exhibit a widespread reliance on binary codifications of human identity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T17:14:47Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• A computational framework of human values for ethical AI [3.5027291542274357]
  values provide a means to engineer ethical AI. No formal, computational definition of values has yet been proposed. We address this through a formal conceptual framework rooted in the social sciences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T11:35:41Z)
• 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)
• When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
  AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind. We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z)
• 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)
• Understanding Relations Between Perception of Fairness and Trust in Algorithmic Decision Making [8.795591344648294]
  We aim to understand the relationship between induced algorithmic fairness and its perception in humans. We also study how does induced algorithmic fairness affects user trust in algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-29T11:00:39Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• Aligning AI With Shared Human Values [85.2824609130584]
  We introduce the ETHICS dataset, a new benchmark that spans concepts in justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense morality. We find that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements. Our work shows that progress can be made on machine ethics today, and it provides a steppingstone toward AI that is aligned with human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-05T17:59:16Z)

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.