skip to main content


Title: Biased Programmers? Or Biased Data? A Field Experiment in Operationalizing AI Ethics
Award ID(s):
1761810
NSF-PAR ID:
10374080
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
EC '20: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
Page Range / eLocation ID:
679 to 681
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Technological innovations have become a key driver of societal advancements. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of machine learning (ML), which has developed algorithmic models that shape our decisions, behaviors, and outcomes. These tools have widespread use, in part, because they can synthesize massive amounts of data to make seemingly objective recommendations. Yet, in the past few years, the ML community has been drawing attention to the need for caution when interpreting and using these models. This is because these models are created by humans, from data generated by humans, whose psychology allows for various biases that impact how the models are developed, trained, tested, and interpreted. As psychologists, we thus face a fork in the road: Down the first path, we can continue to use these models without examining and addressing these critical flaws and rely on computer scientists to try to mitigate them. Down the second path, we can turn our expertise in bias toward this growing field, collaborating with computer scientists to reduce the models’ deleterious outcomes. This article serves to light the way down the second path by identifying how extant psychological research can help examine and curtail bias in ML models.

     
    more » « less
  2. null (Ed.)
  3. Prior expectations can bias how we perceive pain. Using a drift diffusion model, we recently showed that this influence is primarily based on changes in perceptual decision-making (indexed as shift in starting point). Only during unexpected application of high-intensity noxious stimuli, altered information processing (indexed as increase in drift rate) explained the expectancy effect on pain processing. Here, we employed functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the neural basis of both these processes in healthy volunteers. On each trial, visual cues induced the expectation of high- or low-intensity noxious stimulation or signaled equal probability for both intensities. Participants categorized a subsequently applied electrical stimulus as either low- or high-intensity pain. A shift in starting point towards high pain correlated negatively with right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity during cue presentation underscoring its proposed role of “keeping pain out of mind”. This anticipatory right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex signal increase was positively correlated with periaqueductal gray (PAG) activity when the expected high-intensity stimulation was applied. A drift rate increase during unexpected high-intensity pain was reflected in amygdala engagement and increased functional connectivity between amygdala and PAG. Our findings suggest involvement of the PAG in both decision-making bias and altered information processing to implement expectancy effects on pain. 
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)