Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03275v1
• Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:17:45 GMT
• Title: Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration
• Authors: Yahang Qi, Bernhard Schölkopf, Zhijing Jin,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
• Score: 62.474732677086855
• License:
• Abstract: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly influence decision-making across various fields, the need to attribute responsibility for undesirable outcomes has become essential, though complicated by the complex interplay between humans and AI. Existing attribution methods based on actual causality and Shapley values tend to disproportionately blame agents who contribute more to an outcome and rely on real-world measures of blameworthiness that may misalign with responsible AI standards. This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems, measuring overall blameworthiness while employing counterfactual reasoning to account for agents' expected epistemic levels. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.

Related papers

• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• Unraveling the Nuances of AI Accountability: A Synthesis of Dimensions Across Disciplines [0.0]
  We review current research across multiple disciplines and identify key dimensions of accountability in the context of AI. We reveal six themes with 13 corresponding dimensions and additional accountability facilitators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:08:39Z)
• Problem Solving Through Human-AI Preference-Based Cooperation [74.39233146428492]
  We propose HAI-Co2, a novel human-AI co-construction framework. We formalize HAI-Co2 and discuss the difficult open research problems that it faces. We present a case study of HAI-Co2 and demonstrate its efficacy compared to monolithic generative AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T11:06:57Z)
• Attributing Responsibility in AI-Induced Incidents: A Computational Reflective Equilibrium Framework for Accountability [13.343937277604892]
  The pervasive integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced complex challenges in the responsibility and accountability in the event of incidents involving AI-enabled systems. This work proposes a coherent and ethically acceptable responsibility attribution framework for all stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T18:11:03Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems [1.0549609328807565]
  It is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating. This paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T13:45:36Z)
• A risk-based approach to assessing liability risk for AI-driven harms considering EU liability directive [0.0]
  Historical instances of harm caused by AI have led to European Union establishing an AI Liability Directive. The future ability of provider to contest a product liability claim will depend on good practices adopted in designing, developing, and maintaining AI systems. This paper provides a risk-based approach to examining liability for AI-driven injuries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T15:52:43Z)
• 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)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Human Perceptions on Moral Responsibility of AI: A Case Study in AI-Assisted Bail Decision-Making [8.688778020322758]
  We measure people's perceptions of eight different notions of moral responsibility concerning AI and human agents. We show that AI agents are held causally responsible and blamed similarly to human agents for an identical task. We find that people expect both AI and human decision-makers and advisors to justify their decisions regardless of their nature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-01T04:07:38Z)

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.