We introduce the Bias Network Approach (BNA) as a sociotechnical method for AI developers to identify, map, and relate biases across the AI development process. This approach addresses the limitations of what we call the "isolationist approach to AI bias," a trend in AI literature where biases are seen as separate occurrence linked to specific stages in an AI pipeline. Dealing with these multiple biases can trigger a sense of excessive overload in managing each potential bias individually (...) or promote the adoption of an uncritical approach to understanding the influence of biases in developers’ decision-making. The BNA fosters dialogue and a critical stance among developers, guided by external experts, using graphical representations to depict biased connections. To test the BNA, we conducted a pilot case study on the "waiting list” project, involving a small AI developer team creating a healthcare waiting list NPL model in Chile. The analysis showed promising findings: (i) the BNA aids in visualizing interconnected biases and their impacts, facilitating ethical reflection in a more accessible way; (ii) it promotes transparency in decision-making throughout AI development; and (iii) more focus is necessary on professional biases and material limitations as sources of bias in AI development. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Toleration and Justice in the Laozi:Engaging with Tao Jiang's Origins of Moral-Political Philosophy in Early ChinaAi Yuan (bio)IntroductionThis review article engages with Tao Jiang's ground-breaking monograph on the Origins of Moral-Political Philosophy in Early China with particular focus on the articulation of toleration and justice in the Laozi (otherwise called the Daodejing).1 Jiang discusses a naturalistic turn and the re-alignment of values in the Laozi, resulting in a naturalization (...) of justice (impartiality) by rejecting artificial humaneness and rigid hierarchical moral-political structures. In this Laozian just world, there is no room for human intervention and rigid top-down enforcement of values, thus leaving justice to naturalized Heaven or Dao as the ultimate source of the cosmos.Based on Jiang's interpretative context, I show that there is a twofold justification for the "paradoxical" and "elusive"2 value of political toleration.3 A negative expression of toleration focuses on non-interference with choices, and non-enforcement of values toward those whom one reasonably disagrees with and regards as morally wrong. Such an attitude of toleration results in practical advantages such as avoiding entrenchment in bloodshed, abandonment, and deprivation.A positive expression of toleration operating in the Laozian ideal world requires equal protection of people as capable knowers, including those to whom we object. Such protection includes their ways of expression and an unbiased recognition of them as equally capable knowers so that they are heard without bias and prejudice. Such a kind of toleration is revealed as a constituent component of justice since it enables equal contribution toward the shaping of society without discrimination. In other words, toleration is seen as naturalized justice in a Laozian world within which no one is "being wronged with the capacity as a knower"—a kind of epistemic justice articulated by Miranda Fricker (Fricker 2007).4 [End Page 466]This article discusses how Jiang's political reconstruction of Laozian philosophy contains the seeds for a discussion of toleration, a value associated with distributive justice and against epistemic injustice. First, it introduces Jiang's arguments on a naturalization of justice and impartiality as Heavenly attributes in the Laozi. Second, it articulates the value of tolerance in the Laozi. Finally, I compare Laozian toleration with Confucian toleration using youwei- wuwei metaethical criticism.Moral-Political Philosophy in the LaoziJiang's interpretative framework about the origins of distributive justice in the Laozi starts with a discussion of the cosmogonic-mystical worldviews that signal "a new understanding of the nature of the cosmos, as well as a broad reorientation in the Heaven-human relationship in the mid-Warring States period" (p. 192). Differing from the interests in the origins of human culture or civilization in the Ru and Mo traditions, Jiang agrees with Franklin Perkins and identifies a "cosmogonic turn" in the late fourth century b.c. that reveals a demotion of anthropomorphic Heaven. By paring Heaven with earth and accordingly decentering human beings in the intellectual discourse, the Laozi directs equal values to the ten thousand things, with humans as just one among them (Perkins 2016, quoted in Jiang 2021, p. 196).5 Laozi's philosophy thus stands out by rejecting Heaven as caring for human affairs while taking Dao as the ultimate origin of the cosmos, as claimed in chapter 5 of the received text: "Heaven and earth are not humane; they treat ten-thousand things in the world as straw dogs; the sage is not humane; he treats people as straw dogs" (p. 199).With Jiang's reading of a naturalistic heaven, we see a re-alignment between cosmos and the human since sage-rulers follow the Heaven-Dao. The Laozian Dao is "self-so-ing" (ziran 自然), "accommodating" (rong 容), and "impartial" (gong 公), and thus marks a sharp contrast to Confucian familial bias resulting in "actively intervening in human affairs on behalf of the (certain) humans by appointing them to carry out its mission" (p. 200). With the sage emulating the ultimate Dao, the Laozi replaces the Confucian anthropocentric Heaven, which focuses on partiality (qin 親) and humaneness (ren 仁).This Laozian understanding of the cosmos also grounds its philosophical departure from Mohism despite both having a political... (shrink)

Generative AI models are shaping our future. In this work, we discover and expose the bias against physically challenged people in generative models. Generative models (Stable Diffusion XL and DALL·E 3) are unable to generate content related to the physically challenged, e.g., inclusive washroom, even with very detailed prompts. Our analysis reveals that this disability bias emanates from biased AI datasets. We achieve this using a novel strategy to automatically discover bias against underrepresented groups like the physically (...) challenged. Finally, we track the root of this disability bias in search engines (Google, Bing, Yandex, and DuckDuckGo). Search engines suffer from disability bias for neutral prompts. The standard strategy of using synonyms to retrieve diverse results does not automatically include the physically challenged. Search engines require specific mention of the underrepresented group to retrieve relevant results. Therefore, conscious effort is required to include underrepresented groups while scraping datasets from search engines. A future built by generative AI having little understanding of physically challenged people will have serious implications. We hope that our effort lays the groundwork for future datasets and algorithms that include this underrepresented group. (shrink)

This paper explores the issue of racial bias in artificial intelligence (AI) through the lens of the bioethical principle of justice, with a focus on Joy Buolamwini’s “Coded Bias” and the work of the “Algorithmic Justice League.” AI technologies, particularly facial recognition systems, have been shown to disproportionately misidentify individuals from marginalised racial groups, raising profound ethical concerns about fairness and equity. The bioethical principle of justice stresses the importance of equal treatment and the protection of vulnerable populations. (...) Through qualitative research, including content analysis of Buolamwini’s works and case studies of AI bias, this paper assesses the efforts of the Algorithmic Justice League to combat racial bias in AI. It emphasises their advocacy for the development of fair, equitable algorithms and calls for systemic reform in AI development to ensure justice for marginalised communities. (shrink)

In response to calls for greater interdisciplinary involvement from the social sciences and humanities in the development, governance, and study of artificial intelligence systems, this paper presents one sociologist’s view on the problem of algorithmic bias and the reproduction of societal bias. Discussions of bias in AI cover much of the same conceptual terrain that sociologists studying inequality have long understood using more specific terms and theories. Concerns over reproducing societal bias should be informed by an (...) understanding of the ways that inequality is continually reproduced in society—processes that AI systems are either complicit in, or can be designed to disrupt and counter. The contrast presented here is between conservative and radical approaches to AI, with conservatism referring to dominant tendencies that reproduce and strengthen the status quo, while radical approaches work to disrupt systemic forms of inequality. The limitations of a conservative approach to racial bias are discussed through the specific example of biased criminal risk assessments and Indigenous overrepresentation in Canada’s criminal justice system. This illustrates the dangers of treating racial bias as a generalizable problem and equality as a generalizable solution, emphasizing the importance of considering inequality in context. Societal issues can no longer be out of scope for AI and machine learning, given the impact of these systems on human lives. This requires engagement with a growing body of critical AI scholarship that goes beyond biased data to analyze structured ways of perpetuating inequality, opening up the possibility for interdisciplinary engagement and radical alternatives. (shrink)

For synergistic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, AI outputs often need to be explainable to people. Explainable AI (XAI) systems are commonly tested in human user studies. However, whether XAI researchers consider potential cultural differences in human explanatory needs remains unexplored. We highlight psychological research that found significant differences in human explanations between many people from Western, commonly individualist countries and people from non-Western, often collectivist countries. We argue that XAI research currently overlooks these variations and that (...) many popular XAI designs implicitly and problematically assume that Western explanatory needs are shared cross-culturally. Additionally, we systematically reviewed over 200 XAI user studies and found that most studies did not consider relevant cultural variations, sampled only Western populations, but drew conclusions about human-XAI interactions more generally. We also analyzed over 30 literature reviews of XAI studies. Most reviews did not mention cultural differences in explanatory needs or flag overly broad cross-cultural extrapolations of XAI user study results. Combined, our analyses provide evidence of a cultural bias toward Western populations in XAI research, highlighting an important knowledge gap regarding how culturally diverse users may respond to widely used XAI systems that future work can and should address. (shrink)

AI systems have often been found to contain gender biases. As a result of these gender biases, AI routinely fails to adequately recognize the needs, rights, and accomplishments of women. In this article, we use Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition to argue that AI’s gender biases are not only an ethical problem because they can lead to discrimination, but also because they resemble forms of misrecognition that can hurt women’s self-development and self-worth. Furthermore, we argue that Honneth’s theory of recognition (...) offers a fruitful framework for improving our understanding of the psychological and normative implications of gender bias in modern technologies. Moreover, our Honnethian analysis of gender bias in AI shows that the goal of responsible AI requires us to address these issues not only through technical interventions, but also through a change in how we grant and deny recognition to each other. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly adopted to make decisions in domains such as business, education, health care, and criminal justice. However, such algorithmic decision systems can have prevalent biases against marginalized social groups and undermine social justice. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is a recent development aiming to make an AI system’s decision processes less opaque and to expose its problematic biases. This paper argues against technical XAI, according to which the detection and interpretation of algorithmic bias can be (...) handled more or less independently by technical experts who specialize in XAI methods. Drawing on resources from feminist epistemology, we show why technical XAI is mistaken. Specifically, we demonstrate that the proper detection of algorithmic bias requires relevant interpretive resources, which can only be made available, in practice, by actively involving a diverse group of stakeholders. Finally, we suggest how feminist theories can help shape integrated XAI: an inclusive social-epistemic process that facilitates the amelioration of algorithmic bias. (shrink)

Across the world, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are being more widely employed in public sector decision-making and processes as a supposedly neutral and an efficient method for optimizing delivery of services. However, the deployment of these technologies has also prompted investigation into the potentially unanticipated consequences of their introduction, to both positive and negative ends. This paper chooses to focus specifically on the relationship between gender bias and AI, exploring claims of the neutrality of such technologies and how its (...) understanding of bias could influence policy and outcomes. Building on a rich seam of literature from both technological and sociological fields, this article constructs an original framework through which to analyse both the perpetuation and mitigation of gender biases, choosing to categorize AI technologies based on whether their input is text or images. Through the close analysis and pairing of four case studies, the paper thus unites two often disparate approaches to the investigation of bias in technology, revealing the large and varied potential for AI to echo and even amplify existing human bias, while acknowledging the important role AI itself can play in reducing or reversing these effects. The conclusion calls for further collaboration between scholars from the worlds of technology, gender studies and public policy in fully exploring algorithmic accountability as well as in accurately and transparently exploring the potential consequences of the introduction of AI technologies. (shrink)

To analyze which ethically relevant biases have been identified by academic literature in artificial intelligence algorithms developed either for patient risk prediction and triage, or for contact tracing to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, to specifically investigate whether the role of social determinants of health have been considered in these AI developments or not. We conducted a scoping review of the literature, which covered publications from March 2020 to April 2021. ​Studies mentioning biases on AI algorithms developed for contact (...) tracing and medical triage or risk prediction regarding COVID-19 were included. From 1054 identified articles, 20 studies were finally included. We propose a typology of biases identified in the literature based on bias, limitations and other ethical issues in both areas of analysis. Results on health disparities and SDOH were classified into five categories: racial disparities, biased data, socio-economic disparities, unequal accessibility and workforce, and information communication. SDOH needs to be considered in the clinical context, where they still seem underestimated. Epidemiological conditions depend on geographic location, so the use of local data in studies to develop international solutions may increase some biases. Gender bias was not specifically addressed in the articles included. The main biases are related to data collection and management. Ethical problems related to privacy, consent, and lack of regulation have been identified in contact tracing while some bias-related health inequalities have been highlighted. There is a need for further research focusing on SDOH and these specific AI apps. (shrink)

According to Russell and Norvig’s (2009) classification, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the field that aims at building systems which either think rationally, act rationally, think like humans, or...

The increasing implementation of and reliance on machine-learning (ML) algorithms to perform tasks, deliver services and make decisions in health and healthcare have made the need for fairness in ML, and more specifically in healthcare ML algorithms (HMLA), a very important and urgent task. However, while the debate on fairness in the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) and in HMLA has grown significantly over the last decade, the very concept of fairness as an ethical value has not yet been sufficiently (...) explored. Our paper aims to fill this gap and address the AI ethics principle of fairness from a conceptual standpoint, drawing insights from accounts of fairness elaborated in moral philosophy and using them to conceptualise fairness as an ethical value and to redefine fairness in HMLA accordingly. To achieve our goal, following a first section aimed at clarifying the background, methodology and structure of the paper, in the second section, we provide an overview of the discussion of the AI ethics principle of fairness in HMLA and show that the concept of fairness underlying this debate is framed in purely distributive terms and overlaps with non-discrimination, which is defined in turn as the absence of biases. After showing that this framing is inadequate, in the third section, we pursue an ethical inquiry into the concept of fairness and argue that fairness ought to be conceived of as an ethical value. Following a clarification of the relationship between fairness and non-discrimination, we show that the two do not overlap and that fairness requires much more than just non-discrimination. Moreover, we highlight that fairness not only has a distributive but also a socio-relational dimension. Finally, we pinpoint the constitutive components of fairness. In doing so, we base our arguments on a renewed reflection on the concept of respect, which goes beyond the idea of equal respect to include respect for individual persons. In the fourth section, we analyse the implications of our conceptual redefinition of fairness as an ethical value in the discussion of fairness in HMLA. Here, we claim that fairness requires more than non-discrimination and the absence of biases as well as more than just distribution; it needs to ensure that HMLA respects persons both as persons and as particular individuals. Finally, in the fifth section, we sketch some broader implications and show how our inquiry can contribute to making HMLA and, more generally, AI promote the social good and a fairer society. (shrink)

The paper aims to respond to the ethical concern of biases generated by Artificial Intelligence systems. Even though biases enter an AI network via different channels, its presence in the algorithm can pose serious difficulties. AI systems have an algorithmic way of working where language is ‘formal’ and meaning is ‘fixed’. We employ deconstructive strategies of Jacques Derrida to understand the nature of this problem of AI bias through examination of algorithmic/programming language. Derridean philosophy looks at metaphysics as heavily (...) depended on notions such as logocentrism where logos refers to the privileged part in a dichotomy. Logos is the centre of formal language which works as a system of signs. The main point of deconstruction is to apprise us of this privilege given to ‘presence’ of a concept or meaning over its ‘absence’. Derrida’s notion of Undecidables and Aporia, not only destabilizes rigid dichotomies like speech/writing but also give way to an opening of a concept in its ‘impossible -possibility’. In AI systems, programming/algorithmic language conforming to its algorithm offers definitive answers to problems. This takes us a step ahead in ‘formalization’ of language. Derrida, however offers a response via his ethical deconstruction where the process of ‘completion’ of any concept is deferred and its meaning ‘undecided’. (shrink)

이 글은 효율성과 공정성을 높이기 위해 도입된 알고리즘이 오히려 차별과 불평등을 낳은 사례들에 대한 전 세계적 보고들로 인해, 그리고 특히 최근 한국에서 화제가 된 챗봇 ‘이루다’의 차별 및 혐오 발언으로, 많은 주목을 받고 있는 AI의 편향(bias) 문제에 대한 하나의 접근 방법을 제시하고자 한다. 단순한 기계의 고장과 달리 블랙박스라 불리는 AI의 편향을 낳는 원인들은 복잡하게 얽혀있어서 쉽게 밝히기 어려울 뿐 아니라 편향을 줄이기 위한 기술적 접근이 오히려 다른 종류의 편향을 낳을 수 있다. 그리고 편향에 개입할 수 있는 인간들의 윤리의식을 높이기 (...) 위한 가이드라인이 제시되었으며, 알고리즘 영향평가, 감사 등의 제도들도 제시되고 있다. 하지만 AI 윤리가 오히려 윤리 세탁에 이용되고 있다는 비판이 제기된 바 있으며, 섣부른 법적 · 제도적 개입은 면죄부를 제공할 수도 있다.BR이 글은 AI의 편향에 대해 ‘역설에 대처할 수 있는 반성적 접근’이라는 다소 복잡하고 어려운 방법을 제시하고자 한다. 이 접근법은 인간의 편향에 맞서 감정을 배제하는 건조한 지성을 추구했던 노력이 ‘계몽의 자기파괴’라 불리는 역설에 이르게 된 과정, 그리고 이러한 계몽의 역설에 대처하기 위해 20세기 중후반의 철학이 계몽의 유산인 반성(Reflexion)을 사회적 차원으로 이동시켜 절차화했다는 점에 주목한다. 그리고 현대 사회의 기능체계들이 역설에 대처할 수 있는 코드, 프로그램, 반성이론 등을 마련했음에 주목한다. 이를 참조해, 필자는 다양한 인간들과 여러 제조사들의 AI가 서로 견제할 수 있는 반성적 과정과 절차를 마련할 것을 제안한다. (shrink)

Substantial research over the last ten years has indicated that many generative artificial intelligence systems (“GAI”) have the potential to produce biased results, particularly with respect to gender. This potential for bias has grown progressively more important in recent years as GAI has become increasingly integrated in multiple critical sectors, such as healthcare, consumer lending, and employment. While much of the study of gender bias in popular GAI systems is focused on text-based GAI such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and (...) Google’s Gemini (formerly Bard), this article describes the results of a confirmatory experiment of gender bias in visual GAI systems. The authors argue that the potential for gender bias in visual GAI systems is potentially more troubling than bias in textual GAI because of the superior memorability of images and the capacity for emotional communication that images represent. They go on to offer four potential approaches to gender bias in visual GAI based on the roles visual GAI could play in modern society. The article concludes with a discussion of how dominant societal values could influence a choice between those four potential approaches to gender bias in visual GAI and some suggestions for further research. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the potential of “equitech”—AI technology that improves equity. Recently, interventions have been developed to reduce the harm of implicit bias, the automatic form of stereotype or prejudice that contributes to injustice. However, these interventions—some of which are assisted by AI-related technology—have significant limitations, including unintended negative consequences and general inefficacy. To overcome these limitations, we propose a two-dimensional framework to assess current AI-assisted interventions and explore promising new ones. We begin by using the case of (...) human resource recruitment as a focal point to show that existing approaches have exploited only a subset of the available solution space. We then demonstrate how our framework facilitates the discovery of new approaches. The first dimension of this framework helps us systematically consider the analytic information, intervention implementation, and modes of human-machine interaction made available by advancements in AI-related technology. The second dimension enables the identification and incorporation of insights from recent research on implicit bias intervention. We argue that a design strategy that combines complementary interventions can further enhance the effectiveness of interventions by targeting the various interacting cognitive systems that underlie implicit bias. We end with a discussion of how our cognitive interventions framework can have positive downstream effects for structural problems. (shrink)

While rapid advances in artificial intelligence hiring tools promise to transform the workplace, these algorithms risk exacerbating existing biases against marginalized groups. In light of these ethical issues, AI vendors have sought to translate normative concepts such as fairness into measurable, mathematical criteria that can be optimized for. However, questions of disability and access often are omitted from these ongoing discussions about algorithmic bias. In this paper, I argue that the multiplicity of different kinds and intensities of people’s disabilities (...) and the fluid, contextual ways in which they manifest point to the limits of algorithmic fairness initiatives. In particular, existing de-biasing measures tend to flatten variance within and among disabled people and abstract away information in ways that reinforce pathologization. While fair machine learning methods can help mitigate certain disparities, I argue that fairness alone is insufficient to secure accessible, inclusive AI. I then outline a disability justice approach, which provides a framework for centering disabled people’s experiences and attending to the structures and norms that underpin algorithmic bias. (shrink)

이 글은 인공지능에 의한 차별과 그 책임 논의를 철학적 차원에서 본격적으로 연구하기에 앞선 예비적 고찰이다. 인공지능에 의한 차별을 철학자들의 연구를 요하는 당면 ‘문제’로 제기하고, 이를 위해 ‘인공지능에 의한 차별’이라는 문제의 성격과 원인을 규명하는 것이 이 글의 주된 목적이다. 인공지능은 기존 차별을 그대로 반복하여 현존하는 차별의 강화 및 영속화를 야기할 수 있으며, 이는 먼 미래의 일이 아니다. 이러한 문제는 현재 발생 중이며 공동체적 대응을 요구한다. 그러나 철학자의 입장에서 그와 관련한 책임 논의를 다루기는 쉽지 않다. 그 이유는 크게 인공지능의 복잡한 기술적 문제와 (...) 전통적 책임 개념의 한계라 할 수 있다. 여기서는 특히 인공지능과 관련된 기술적 개념을 중심으로 문제를 파악하고, 이와 관련하여 인간 행위자의 책임 및 그 역량을 규명한다. 통칭 인공지능으로 이해되는 것은 알고리즘에 기반한 자동화 시스템이며, 알고리즘의 편향성이 인공지능에 의한 차별을 야기할 수 있다. 알고리즘이 겉보기에 인간 행위자와 독립적으로 작동하는 것처럼 보일지라도, 인간 행위자가 그에 개입하고 있음을 밝힌다. 인간 행위자가 편향된 입력 자료를 사용하거나 편향된 설계를 할 수 있다는 점에서, 알고리즘의 편향성은 인간 행위자의 편향성과 불가분의 관계이기 때문이다. 그러므로 인간 행위자는 인공지능에 의한 차별문제에 대응할 책임이 있으며, 책임 역량을 갖고 있다. 마지막으로 인공지능에 의한 차별 논의를 위한 철학 연구의 추후 과제를 정리한다. (shrink)

The objective of this paper is to examine how artificial intelligence systems (AI) can reproduce phenomena of social discrimination and to develop an ethical strategy for preventing such occurrences. A substantial body of scholarship has demonstrated how AI has the potential to erode the rights of women and LGBT+ individuals, as it is capable of amplifying forms of discrimination that are already pervasive in society. This paper examines the principal approaches that have been put forth to contrast the emergence of (...) biases in AI systems, namely causal, counterfactual reasoning, and constructivist methodology. This analysis demonstrates the necessity of considering the sociopolitical context in which AI systems are developed when evaluating their ethical implications. To investigate this conjunction, we apply the theory of gender performativity as theorized by Judith Butler and Karen Barad. This illustrates how AI functions within the social fabric, manifesting patriarchal configurations of gender through an analysis of the notorious case of the COMPAS system for predictive justice. In conclusion, we demonstrate how reframing of gender performativity theory, when applied to AI ethics, permits us to consider the social context within which these technologies will operate. This approach enables an expansion of the interpretation of the concept of fairness, thereby reflecting the complex dynamics of gender production. In the context of AI ethics, the concept of "fairness" pertains to the capacity of an algorithm to generate results dealing with sensitive categories, such as gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and disability, in a manner that does not engender forms of discrimination and prejudice. The gender dimension needs to be reconsidered not as an individual feature but as a performative process. Moreover, it enables the identification of pivotal issues that must be addressed during the development, testing, and evaluation phases of AI systems. (shrink)

The present comment concerns a recent AI & Ethics article which purports to report evidence of speciesist bias in various popular computer vision (CV) and natural language processing (NLP) machine learning models described in the literature. I examine the authors' analysis and show it, ironically, to be prejudicial, often being founded on poorly conceived assumptions and suffering from fallacious and insufficiently rigorous reasoning, its superficial appeal in large part relying on the sequacity of the article's target readership.

The literature addressing bias and fairness in AI models (fair-AI) is growing at a fast pace, making it difficult for novel researchers and practitioners to have a bird’s-eye view picture of the field. In particular, many policy initiatives, standards, and best practices in fair-AI have been proposed for setting principles, procedures, and knowledge bases to guide and operationalize the management of bias and fairness. The first objective of this paper is to concisely survey the state-of-the-art of fair-AI methods (...) and resources, and the main policies on bias in AI, with the aim of providing such a bird’s-eye guidance for both researchers and practitioners. The second objective of the paper is to contribute to the policy advice and best practices state-of-the-art by leveraging from the results of the NoBIAS research project. We present and discuss a few relevant topics organized around the NoBIAS architecture, which is made up of a Legal Layer, focusing on the European Union context, and a Bias Management Layer, focusing on understanding, mitigating, and accounting for bias. (shrink)

In “Artificial Intelligence, Social Media and Depression: A New Concept of Health-Related Digital Autonomy,” Laacke and colleagues posit a revised model of autonomy when using digital algori...

Current research in artificial intelligence (AI) sheds light on algorithmic bias embedded in AI systems. The underrepresentation of women in the AI design sector of the tech industry, as well as in training datasets, results in technological products that encode gender bias, reinforce stereotypes and reproduce normative notions of gender and femininity. Biased behaviour is notably reflected in anthropomorphic AI systems, such as personal intelligent assistants (PIAs) and chatbots, that are usually feminized through various design parameters, such as (...) names, voices and traits. Gendering of AI entities, however, is often reduced to the encoding of stereotypical behavioural patterns that perpetuate normative assumptions about the role of women in society. The impact of this behaviour on social life increases, as human-to-(anthropomorphic)machine interactions are mirrored in human-to-human social interactions. This article presents current critical research on AI bias, focusing on anthropomorphic systems. Moreover, it discusses the significance of women’s engagement in AI design and programming, by presenting selected case studies of contemporary female media artists and designers. Finally, it suggests that women, through their creative practice, provide feminist and critical approaches to AI design which are essential for imagining alternative, inclusive, ethic and de-biased futures for anthropomorphic AIs. (shrink)

The rise of AI-based systems has been accompanied by the belief that these systems are impartial and do not suffer from the biases that humans and older technologies express. It becomes evident, however, that gender and racial biases exist in some AI algorithms. The question is where the bias is rooted—in the training dataset or in the algorithm? Is it a linguistic issue or a broader sociological current? Works in feminist philosophy of technology and behavioral economics reveal the gender (...) bias in AI technologies as a multi-faceted phenomenon, and the linguistic explanation as too narrow. The next step moves from the linguistic aspects to the relational ones, with postphenomenology. One of the analytical tools of this theory is the “I-technology-world” formula that models our relations with technologies, and through them—with the world. Realizing that AI technologies give rise to new types of relations in which the technology has an “enhanced technological intentionality”, a new formula is suggested: “I-algorithm-dataset.” In the third part of the article, four types of solutions to the gender bias in AI are reviewed: ignoring any reference to gender, revealing the considerations that led the algorithm to decide, designing algorithms that are not biased, or lastly, involving humans in the process. In order to avoid gender bias, we can recall a feminist basic understanding—visibility matters. Users and developers should be aware of the possibility of gender and racial biases, and try to avoid them, bypass them, or exterminates them altogether. (shrink)

This research delves into the potential of implementing artificial intelligence in architecture. It specifically provides a critical assessment of AI-enabled workflows, encompassing creative ideation, representation, materiality, and critical thinking, facilitated by prompt-based generative processes. In this context, the paper provides an examination of the concept of hybrid human–machine intelligence. In an era characterized by pervasive data bias and engineered injustices, the concept of hybrid intelligence emerges as a critical tool, enabling the transcendence of preconceived stereotypes, clichés, and linguistic prejudices. (...) This paper not only explores the applied and generative capacities of AI-enabled workflows but also suggests fundamental approaches that can enhance the creative process and confront the embedded biases and injustices within data-driven systems. (shrink)

Among the myriad of technical approaches and abstract guidelines proposed to the topic of AI bias, there has been an urgent call to translate the principle of fairness into the operational AI reality with the involvement of social sciences specialists to analyse the context of specific types of bias, since there is not a generalizable solution. This article offers an interdisciplinary contribution to the topic of AI and societal bias, in particular against the poor, providing a conceptual (...) framework of the issue and a tailor-made model from which meaningful data are obtained using Natural Language Processing word vectors in pretrained Google Word2Vec, Twitter and Wikipedia GloVe word embeddings. The results of the study offer the first set of data that evidences the existence of bias against the poor and suggest that Google Word2vec shows a higher degree of bias when the terms are related to beliefs, whereas bias is higher in Twitter GloVe when the terms express behaviour. This article contributes to the body of work on bias, both from and AI and a social sciences perspective, by providing evidence of a transversal aggravating factor for historical types of discrimination. The evidence of bias against the poor also has important consequences in terms of human development, since it often leads to discrimination, which constitutes an obstacle for the effectiveness of poverty reduction policies. (shrink)

The use of advanced AI and data-driven automation in the public sector poses several organisational, practical, and ethical challenges. One that is easy to underestimate is automation bias, which, in turn, has underappreciated legal consequences. Automation bias is an attitude in which the operator of an autonomous system will defer to its outputs to the point where the operator overlooks or ignores evidence that the system is failing. The legal problem arises when statutory office-holders (or their employees) either (...) fetter their discretion to in-house algorithms or improperly delegate their discretion to third-party software developers—something automation bias may facilitate. A synthesis of previous research suggests an easy way to mitigate the risks of automation bias and its potential legal ramifications is for those responsible for procurement decisions to adhere to a simple checklist that ensures that the pitfalls of automation are avoided as much as possible. (shrink)

This piece in Nature Medicine notes the risks that incorporation of AI systems into health care poses to disabled patients and proposes ways to avoid them and instead create benefit.

As algorithms have become ubiquitous in consequential domains, societal concerns about the potential for discriminatory outcomes have prompted urgent calls to address algorithmic bias. In response, a rich literature across computer science, law, and ethics is rapidly proliferating to advance approaches to designing fair algorithms. Yet computer scientists, legal scholars, and ethicists are often not speaking the same language when using the term ‘bias.’ Debates concerning whether society can or should tackle the problem of algorithmic bias are (...) hampered by conflations of various understandings of bias, ranging from neutral deviations from a standard to morally problematic instances of injustice due to prejudice, discrimination, and disparate treatment. This terminological confusion impedes efforts to address clear cases of discrimination. -/- In this paper, we examine the promises and challenges of different approaches to disambiguating bias and designing for justice. While both approaches aid in understanding and addressing clear algorithmic harms, we argue that they also risk being leveraged in ways that ultimately deflect accountability from those building and deploying these systems. Applying this analysis to recent examples of generative AI, our argument highlights unseen dangers in current methods of evaluating algorithmic bias and points to ways to redirect approaches to addressing bias in generative AI at its early stages in ways that can more robustly meet the demands of justice. (shrink)

AI’s new ability to create artworks is seen as a major challenge to today’s understanding of art. There is a strong tension between people who predict that AI will replace artists and critics who claim that AI art will never be art. Furthermore, recent studies have documented a negative bias towards AI art. This paper provides a philosophical explanation for this negative bias, based on our shared understanding of the ontological differences between objects. We argue that our perception (...) of art depends on our understanding of the context of its creation: human-made art is experienced as an interplay between the artist and nature. In AI-generated art, this interplay is either absent or minimised. We conclude that the displacement of the “human factor” in art will not lead to an evolution of art, but to the end of art. (shrink)

Machine learning-based AI algorithms lack transparency. In this article, I offer an interpretation of AI’s explainability problem and highlight its ethical saliency. I try to make the case for the legal enforcement of a strong explainability requirement: human organizations which decide to automate decision-making should be legally obliged to demonstrate the capacity to explain and justify the algorithmic decisions that have an impact on the wellbeing, rights, and opportunities of those affected by the decisions. This legal duty can be derived (...) from the demands of Rawlsian public reason. In the second part of the paper, I try to show that the argument from the limitations of human cognition fails to get AI off the hook of public reason. Against a growing trend in AI ethics, my main argument is that the analogy between human minds and artificial neural networks fails because it suffers from an atomistic bias which makes it blind to the social and institutional dimension of human reasoning processes. I suggest that developing interpretive AI algorithms is not the only possible answer to the explainability problem; social and institutional answers are also available and in many cases more trustworthy than techno-scientific ones. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence tools used in employment decision-making cut across the multiple stages of job advertisements, shortlisting, interviews and hiring, and actual and potential bias can arise in each of these stages. One major challenge is to mitigate AI bias and promote fairness in opaque AI systems. This paper argues that the equal opportunity merit principle is an ethical approach for fair AI employment decision-making. Further, explainable AI can mitigate the opacity problem by placing greater emphasis on enhancing the (...) understanding of reasonable users and affected persons as to the AI output. Both the equal opportunity merit principle and explainable AI should be integrated in the design and implementation of AI employment decision-making systems so as to ensure, as far as possible, that the AI output is arrived at through a fair process. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being used in healthcare, thanks to the high level of performance that these systems have proven to deliver. So far, clinical applications have focused on diagnosis and on prediction of outcomes. It is less clear in what way AI can or should support complex clinical decisions that crucially depend on patient preferences. In this paper, we focus on the ethical questions arising from the design, development and deployment of AI systems to support decision-making around (...) cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the determination of a patient’s Do Not Attempt to Resuscitate status (also known as code status). The COVID-19 pandemic has made us keenly aware of the difficulties physicians encounter when they have to act quickly in stressful situations without knowing what their patient would have wanted. We discuss the results of an interview study conducted with healthcare professionals in a university hospital aimed at understanding the status quo of resuscitation decision processes while exploring a potential role for AI systems in decision-making around code status. Our data suggest that (1) current practices are fraught with challenges such as insufficient knowledge regarding patient preferences, time pressure and personal bias guiding care considerations and (2) there is considerable openness among clinicians to consider the use of AI-based decision support. We suggest a model for how AI can contribute to improve decision-making around resuscitation and propose a set of ethically relevant preconditions—conceptual, methodological and procedural—that need to be considered in further development and implementation efforts. (shrink)

This paper delves into the significance and challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics and justice in terms of Common Good and Well-being, fairness and non-discrimination, rational public deliberation, and autonomy and control. Initially, the paper establishes the groundwork for subsequent discussions using the Academia Sinica LLM incident and the AI Technology R&D Guidelines of the National Science and Technology Council(NSTC) as a starting point. In terms of justice and ethics in AI, this research investigates whether AI can fulfill human common (...) interests and welfare. Taking AI injustice as an example, I analyze the practical assessment of AI regarding regional, industrial, and social impacts. Further, this paper discusses the challenges of fairness and non-discrimination in AI, specifically addressing the issue of training on biased data, discussing the acquisition of bias by AI and post-processing supervision issues, and emphasizing the importance of rational public deliberation in this process. Then, this research examines the challenges and countermeasures the rational public faces in public deliberation, such as the importance of education in STEM scientific literacy and technological capabilities. Finally, in discussing AI and autonomy, I propose a 'Human-Centered Approach’ rather than relying solely on the 'Technological Utility Maximization' brought by AI to achieve substantial AI justice. -/- Keywords: AI Ethics and Justice, Fairness and Non-Discrimination, Biased Data Training, Public Deliberation, Autonomy, Human-Centered Approach . (shrink)

The field of AI safety seeks to prevent or reduce the harms caused by AI systems. A simple and appealing account of what is distinctive of AI safety as a field holds that this feature is constitutive: a research project falls within the purview of AI safety just in case it aims to prevent or reduce the harms caused by AI systems. Call this appealingly simple account The Safety Conception of AI safety. Despite its simplicity and appeal, we argue that (...) The Safety Conception is in tension with at least two trends in the ways AI safety researchers and organizations think and talk about AI safety: first, a tendency to characterize the goal of AI safety research in terms of catastrophic risks from future systems; second, the increasingly popular idea that AI safety can be thought of as a branch of safety engineering. Adopting the methodology of conceptual engineering, we argue that these trends are unfortunate: when we consider what concept of AI safety it would be best to have, there are compelling reasons to think that The Safety Conception is the answer. Descriptively, The Safety Conception allows us to see how work on topics that have historically been treated as central to the field of AI safety is continuous with work on topics that have historically been treated as more marginal, like bias, misinformation, and privacy. Normatively, taking The Safety Conception seriously means approaching all efforts to prevent or mitigate harms from AI systems based on their merits rather than drawing arbitrary distinctions between them. (shrink)

Generative AI programs can produce high-quality written and visual content that may be used for good or ill. We argue that a credit–blame asymmetry arises for assigning responsibility for these outputs and discuss urgent ethical and policy implications focused on large-scale language models.

This paper focuses on the fact that AI is predominantly portrayed as white—in colour, ethnicity, or both. We first illustrate the prevalent Whiteness of real and imagined intelligent machines in four categories: humanoid robots, chatbots and virtual assistants, stock images of AI, and portrayals of AI in film and television. We then offer three interpretations of the Whiteness of AI, drawing on critical race theory, particularly the idea of the White racial frame. First, we examine the extent to which this (...) Whiteness might simply reflect the predominantly White milieus from which these artefacts arise. Second, we argue that to imagine machines that are intelligent, professional, or powerful is to imagine White machines because the White racial frame ascribes these attributes predominantly to White people. Third, we argue that AI racialised as White allows for a full erasure of people of colour from the White utopian imaginary. Finally, we examine potential consequences of the racialisation of AI, arguing it could exacerbate bias and misdirect concern. (shrink)

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has provoked a lot of discussions in both epistemological, bioethical and risk-analytic terms, much of it rather paranoid in nature. Unless one takes an extreme anthropocentric and chronocentric stance, this process can be safely regarded as part and parcel of the sciences of the origin. In this contribution, I would like to suggest that at least four different classes of arguments could be brought forth against the proposition that AI - either human-level or (...) superintelligent - represents in itself a credible existential threat to humanity in either nearby or distant future. Part of the same argumentation is applicable to the general notion of postbiological evolution, which has caused even more unnecessary confusion and uproar in both laymen and philosophical circles. While the due attention should be given to the risks and dangers of the transitional period, there are many reasons why we should openly support and cheer for humanity's transition into the postbiological epoch. (shrink)

Forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are already being deployed into clinical settings and research into its future healthcare uses is accelerating. Despite this trajectory, more research is needed regarding the impacts on patients of increasing AI decision making. In particular, the impersonal nature of AI means that its deployment in highly sensitive contexts-of-use, such as in healthcare, raises issues associated with patients’ perceptions of (un) dignified treatment. We explore this issue through an experimental vignette study comparing individuals’ perceptions of being (...) treated in a dignified and respectful way in various healthcare decision contexts. Participants were subject to a 2 (human or AI decision maker) x 2 (positive or negative decision outcome) x 2 (diagnostic or resource allocation healthcare scenario) factorial design. We found evidence of a “human bias” (i.e., a preference for human over AI decision makers) and an “outcome bias” (i.e., a preference for positive over negative outcomes). However, we found that for perceptions of respectful and dignified interpersonal treatment, it matters more who makes the decisions in diagnostic cases and it matters more what the outcomes are for resource allocation cases. We also found that humans were consistently viewed as appropriate decision makers and AI was viewed as dehumanizing, and that participants perceived they were treated better when subject to diagnostic as opposed to resource allocation decisions. Thematic coding of open-ended text responses supported these results. We also outline the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. (shrink)

AI systems that demonstrate significant bias or lower than claimed accuracy, and resulting in individual and societal harms, continue to be reported. Such reports beg the question as to why such systems continue to be funded, developed and deployed despite the many published ethical AI principles. This paper focusses on the funding processes for AI research grants which we have identified as a gap in the current range of ethical AI solutions such as AI procurement guidelines, AI impact assessments (...) and AI audit frameworks. We highlight the responsibilities of funding bodies to ensure investment is channelled towards trustworthy and safe AI systems and provides case studies as to how other ethical funding principles are managed. We offer a first sight of two proposals for funding bodies to consider regarding procedures they can employ. The first proposal is for the inclusion of a Trustworthy AI Statement’ section in the grant application form and offers an example of the associated guidance. The second proposal outlines the wider management requirements of a funding body for the ethical review and monitoring of funded projects to ensure adherence to the proposed ethical strategies in the applicants Trustworthy AI Statement. The anticipated outcome for such proposals being employed would be to create a ‘stop and think’ section during the project planning and application procedure requiring applicants to implement the methods for the ethically aligned design of AI. In essence it asks funders to send the message “if you want the money, then build trustworthy AI!”. (shrink)

When Artificial Intelligence (AI) is applied in decision-making that affects people’s lives, it is now well established that the outcomes can be biased or discriminatory. The question of whether algorithms themselves can be among the sources of bias has been the subject of recent debate among Artificial Intelligence researchers, and scholars who study the social impact of technology. There has been a tendency to focus on examples, where the data set used to train the AI is biased, and denial (...) on the part of some researchers that algorithms can also be biased. Here we illustrate the point that algorithms themselves can be the source of bias with the example of collaborative filtering algorithms for recommendation and search. These algorithms are known to suffer from cold-start, popularity, and homogenizing biases, among others. While these are typically described as statistical biases rather than biases of moral import; in this paper we show that these statistical biases can lead directly to discriminatory outcomes. The intuitive idea is that data points on the margins of distributions of human data tend to correspond to marginalized people. The statistical biases described here have the effect of further marginalizing the already marginal. Biased algorithms for applications such as media recommendations can have significant impact on individuals’ and communities’ access to information and culturally-relevant resources. This source of bias warrants serious attention given the ubiquity of algorithmic decision-making. (shrink)

Components of artificial intelligence (AI) for analysing social big data, such as natural language processing (NLP) algorithms, have improved the timeliness and robustness of health data. NLP techniques have been implemented to analyse large volumes of text from social media platforms to gain insights on disease symptoms, understand barriers to care and predict disease outbreaks. However, AI-based decisions may contain biases that could misrepresent populations, skew results or lead to errors. Bias, within the scope of this paper, is described (...) as the difference between the predictive values and true values within the modelling of an algorithm. Bias within algorithms may lead to inaccurate healthcare outcomes and exacerbate health disparities when results derived from these biased algorithms are applied to health interventions. Researchers who implement these algorithms must consider when and how bias may arise. This paper explores algorithmic biases as a result of data collection, labelling and modelling of NLP algorithms. Researchers have a role in ensuring that efforts towards combating bias are enforced, especially when drawing health conclusions derived from social media posts that are linguistically diverse. Through the implementation of open collaboration, auditing processes and the development of guidelines, researchers may be able to reduce bias and improve NLP algorithms that improve health surveillance. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence is set to transform healthcare. Key ethical issues to emerge with this transformation encompass the accountability and transparency of the decisions made by AI-based systems, the potential for group harms arising from algorithmic bias and the professional roles and integrity of clinicians. These concerns must be balanced against the imperatives of generating public benefit with more efficient healthcare systems from the vastly higher and accurate computational power of AI. In weighing up these issues, this paper applies the (...) deliberative balancing approach of the Ethics Framework for Big Data in Health and Research. The analysis applies relevant values identified from the framework to demonstrate how decision-makers can draw on them to develop and implement AI-assisted support systems into healthcare and clinical practice ethically and responsibly. Please refer to Xafis et al. in this special issue of the Asian Bioethics Review for more information on how this framework is to be used, including a full explanation of the key values involved and the balancing approach used in the case study at the end of this paper. (shrink)

We argue that the growing prevalence of statistical machine learning in everyday decision making – from creditworthiness to police force allocation – effectively replaces many of our humdrum practical judgments and that this will eventually undermine our capacity for making such judgments. We lean on Aristotle’s famous account of how phronesis and moral virtues develop to make our case. If Aristotle is right that the habitual exercise of practical judgment allows us to incrementally hone virtues, and if AI saves us (...) time by taking over some of those practical judgments, or if its pattern recognition capacities are very good at learning that kind of behavior – we risk innovating ourselves out of moral competence with the introduction of AI. (shrink)

In the last few years, we have witnessed a surge in scholarly interest and scientific evidence of how algorithms can produce discriminatory outcomes, especially with regard to gender and race. However, the analysis of fairness and bias in AI, important for the debate of AI for social good, has paid insufficient attention to the category of age and older people. Ageing populations have been largely neglected during the turn to digitality and AI. In this article, the concept of AI (...) ageism is presented to make a theoretical contribution to how the understanding of inclusion and exclusion within the field of AI can be expanded to include the category of age. AI ageism can be defined as practices and ideologies operating within the field of AI, which exclude, discriminate, or neglect the interests, experiences, and needs of older population and can be manifested in five interconnected forms: (1) age biases in algorithms and datasets (technical level), (2) age stereotypes, prejudices and ideologies of actors in AI (individual level), (3) invisibility of old age in discourses on AI (discourse level), (4) discriminatory effects of use of AI technology on different age groups (group level), (5) exclusion as users of AI technology, services and products (user level). Additionally, the paper provides empirical illustrations of the way ageism operates in these five forms. (shrink)