Many real-life scenarios require humans to make difficult trade-offs: do we always follow all the traffic rules or do we violate the speed limit in an emergency? These scenarios force us to evaluate the trade-off between collective norms and our own personal objectives. To create effective AI-human teams, we must equip AI agents with a model of how humans make trade-offs in complex, constrained environments. These agents will be able to mirror human behavior or to draw human attention to situations where decision making could be improved. To this end, we propose a novel inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) method for learning implicit hard and soft constraints from demonstrations, enabling agents to quickly adapt to new settings. In addition, learning soft constraints over states, actions, and state features allows agents to transfer this knowledge to new domains that share similar aspects.
more »
« less
Making Human-Like Moral Decisions
Many real-life scenarios require humans to make difficult trade-offs: do we always follow all the traffic rules or do we violate the speed limit in an emergency? In general, how should we account for and balance the ethical values, safety recommendations, and societal norms, when we are trying to achieve a certain objective? To enable effective AI-human collaboration, we must equip AI agents with a model of how humans make such trade-offs in environments where there is not only a goal to be reached, but there are also ethical constraints to be considered and to possibly align with. These ethical constraints could be both deontological rules on actions that should not be performed, or also consequentialist policies that recommend avoiding reaching certain states of the world. Our purpose is to build AI agents that can mimic human behavior in these ethically constrained decision environments, with a long term research goal to use AI to help humans in making better moral judgments and actions. To this end, we propose a computational approach where competing objectives and ethical constraints are orchestrated through a method that leverages a cognitive model of human decision making, called multi-alternative decision field theory (MDFT). Using MDFT, we build an orchestrator, called MDFT-Orchestrator (MDFT-O), that is both general and flexible. We also show experimentally that MDFT-O both generates better decisions than using a heuristic that takes a weighted average of competing policies (WA-O), but also performs better in terms of mimicking human decisions as collected through Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). Our methodology is therefore able to faithfully model human decision in ethically constrained decision environments.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2007955
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10386116
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- AIES '22: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Oxford, United Kingdom, May 19 - 21, 2021
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 447 to 454
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Voting is used widely to identify a collective decision for a group of agents, based on their preferences. In this paper, we focus on evaluating and designing voting rules that support both the privacy of the voting agents and a notion of fairness over such agents. To do this, we introduce a novel notion of group fairness and adopt the existing notion of local differential privacy. We then evaluate the level of group fairness in several existing voting rules, as well as the trade-offs between fairness and privacy, showing that it is not possible to always obtain maximal economic efficiency with high fairness or high privacy levels. Then, we present both a machine learning and a constrained optimization approach to design new voting rules that are fair while maintaining a high level of economic efficiency. Finally, we empirically examine the effect of adding noise to create local differentially private voting rules and discuss the three-way trade-off between economic efficiency, fairness, and privacy.This paper appears in the special track on AI & Society.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Conservation translocation projects must carefully balance multiple, potentially competing objectives (e.g. population viability, retention of genetic diversity, delivery of key ecological services) against conflicting stakeholder values and severe time and cost constraints. Advanced decision support tools would facilitate identifying practical solutions.
We examined how to achieve compromise across competing objectives in conservation translocations via an examination of giant tortoises in the Galapagos Islands with ancestry from the extinct Floreana Island species (
Chelonoidis niger ). Efforts have begun to populate Floreana Island with tortoises genetically similar to its historical inhabitants while balancing three potentially competing objectives – restoring ecosystem services (sustaining a high tortoise population size), maximizing genome representation of the extinctC. niger species and maintaining a genetically diverse population – under realistic cost constraints.We developed a novel approach to this conservation decision problem by coupling an individual‐based simulation model with generalized additive models and global optimization. We identified several incompatibilities among programme objectives, with quasi‐optimal single‐objective solutions (sets of management actions) differing substantially in programme duration, translocation age, incubation temperature (determinant of sex ratio) and the number of individuals directly translocated from the source population.
Quasi‐optimal single‐objective solutions were able to produce outcomes (i.e. population size and measures of genetic diversity and
C. niger genome representation) to within 75% of their highest simulated outcomes (e.g. highest population size achieved across all simulations) within a cost constraint ofc . $2m USD, but these solutions resulted in severe declines (up to 74% reduction) in outcomes for non‐focal objectives. However, when all programme objectives were equally weighted to produce a multi‐objective solution, all objectives were met to within 90% of the highest achievable mean values across all cost constraints.Synthesis and applications . Multi‐objective conservation translocations are likely to encounter complex trade‐offs and conflicts among programme objectives. Here, we developed a novel combination of modelling approaches to identify optimal management strategies. We found that solutions that simultaneously addressed multiple, competing objectives performed better than single‐objective solutions. Our model‐based decision support tool demonstrates that timely, cost‐effective solutions can be identified in cases where management objectives appear to be incompatible. -
Recent work has considered personalized route planning based on user profiles, but none of it accounts for human trust. We argue that human trust is an important factor to consider when planning routes for automated vehicles. This article presents a trust-based route-planning approach for automated vehicles. We formalize the human-vehicle interaction as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) and model trust as a partially observable state variable of the POMDP, representing the human’s hidden mental state. We build data-driven models of human trust dynamics and takeover decisions, which are incorporated in the POMDP framework, using data collected from an online user study with 100 participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. We compute optimal routes for automated vehicles by solving optimal policies in the POMDP planning and evaluate the resulting routes via human subject experiments with 22 participants on a driving simulator. The experimental results show that participants taking the trust-based route generally reported more positive responses in the after-driving survey than those taking the baseline (trust-free) route. In addition, we analyze the trade-offs between multiple planning objectives (e.g., trust, distance, energy consumption) via multi-objective optimization of the POMDP. We also identify a set of open issues and implications for real-world deployment of the proposed approach in automated vehicles.more » « less
-
This Article develops a framework for both assessing and designing content moderation systems consistent with public values. It argues that moderation should not be understood as a single function, but as a set of subfunctions common to all content governance regimes. By identifying the particular values implicated by each of these subfunctions, it explores the appropriate ways the constituent tasks might best be allocated-specifically to which actors (public or private, human or technological) they might be assigned, and what constraints or processes might be required in their performance. This analysis can facilitate the evaluation and design of content moderation systems to ensure the capacity and competencies necessary for legitimate, distributed systems of content governance. Through a combination of methods, legal schemes delegate at least a portion of the responsibility for governing online expression to private actors. Sometimes, statutory schemes assign regulatory tasks explicitly. In others, this delegation often occurs implicitly, with little guidance as to how the treatment of content should be structured. In the law's shadow, online platforms are largely given free rein to configure the governance of expression. Legal scholarship has surfaced important concerns about the private sector's role in content governance. In response, private platforms engaged in content moderation have adopted structures that mimic public governance forms. Yet, we largely lack the means to measure whether these forms are substantive, effectively infusing public values into the content moderation process, or merely symbolic artifice designed to deflect much needed public scrutiny. This Article's proposed framework addresses that gap in two ways. First, the framework considers together all manner of legal regimes that induce platforms to engage in the function of content moderation. Second, it focuses on the shared set of specific tasks, or subfunctions, involved in the content moderation function across these regimes. Examining a broad range of content moderation regimes together highlights the existence of distinct common tasks and decision points that together constitute the content moderation function. Focusing on this shared set of subfunctions highlights the different values implicated by each and the way they can be "handed off' to human and technical actors to perform in different ways with varying normative and political implications. This Article identifies four key content moderation subfunctions: (1) definition of policies, (2) identification of potentially covered content, (3) application of policies to specific cases, and (4) resolution of those cases. Using these four subfunctions supports a rigorous analysis of how to leverage the capacities and competencies of government and private parties throughout the content moderation process. Such attention also highlights how the exercise of that power can be constrained-either by requiring the use of particular decision-making processes or through limits on the use of automation-in ways that further address normative concerns. Dissecting the allocation of subfunctions in various content moderation regimes reveals the distinct ethical and political questions that arise in alternate configurations. Specifically, it offers a way to think about four key questions: (1) what values are most at issue regarding each subfunction; (2) which activities might be more appropriate to delegate to particular public or private actors; (3) which constraints must be attached to the delegation of each subfunction; and (4) where can investments in shared content moderation infrastructures support relevant values? The functional framework thus provides a means for both evaluating the symbolic legal forms that firms have constructed in service of content moderation and for designing processes that better reflect public values.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534174
