An official website of the United States government
Youth regularly use technology driven by artificial intelligence (AI). However, it is increasingly well-known that AI can cause harm on small and large scales, especially for those underrepresented in tech fields. Recently, users have played active roles in surfacing and mitigating harm from algorithmic bias. Despite being frequent users of AI, youth have been under-explored as potential contributors and stakeholders to the future of AI. We consider three notions that may be at the root of youth facing barriers to playing an active role in responsible AI, which are youth (1) cannot understand the technical aspects of AI, (2) cannot understand the ethical issues around AI, and (3) need protection from serious topics related to bias and injustice. In this study, we worked with youth (N = 30) in first through twelfth grade and parents (N = 6) to explore how youth can be part of identifying algorithmic bias and designing future systems to address problematic technology behavior. We found that youth are capable of identifying and articulating algorithmic bias, often in great detail. Participants suggested different ways users could give feedback for AI that reflects their values of diversity and inclusion. Youth who may have less experience with computing or exposure to societal structures can be supported by peers or adults with more of this knowledge, leading to critical conversations about fairer AI. This work illustrates youths' insights, suggesting that they should be integrated in building a future of responsible AI.
more »
« less
Disambiguating Algorithmic Bias: From Neutrality to Justice
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.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2217680
- PAR ID:
- 10466985
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- ISBN:
- 9798400702310
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 691 to 704
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Montreal QC Canada
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Machine Learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly used in our daily lives, yet often exhibit discrimination against protected groups. In this talk, I discuss the growing concern of bias in ML and overview existing approaches to address fairness issues. Then, I present three novel approaches developed by my research group. The first leverages generative AI to eliminate biases in training datasets, the second tackles non-convex problems arise in fair learning, and the third introduces a matrix decomposition-based post-processing approach to identify and eliminate unfair model components.more » « less
-
Data-driven algorithms are only as good as the data they work with, while datasets, especially social data, often fail to represent minorities adequately. Representation Bias in data can happen due to various reasons, ranging from historical discrimination to selection and sampling biases in the data acquisition and preparation methods. Given that “bias in, bias out,” one cannot expect AI-based solutions to have equitable outcomes for societal applications, without addressing issues such as representation bias. While there has been extensive study of fairness in machine learning models, including several review papers, bias in the data has been less studied. This article reviews the literature on identifying and resolving representation bias as a feature of a dataset, independent of how consumed later. The scope of this survey is bounded to structured (tabular) and unstructured (e.g., image, text, graph) data. It presents taxonomies to categorize the studied techniques based on multiple design dimensions and provides a side-by-side comparison of their properties. There is still a long way to fully address representation bias issues in data. The authors hope that this survey motivates researchers to approach these challenges in the future by observing existing work within their respective domains.more » « less
-
Fueled by the soaring popularity of foundation models, the accelerated growth of artificial intelligence (AI) models’ enormous environmental footprint has come under increased scrutiny. While many approaches have been proposed to make AI more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly, environmental inequity — the fact that AI’s environmental footprint can be disproportionately higher in certain regions than in others — has emerged, raising social-ecological justice concerns. This paper takes a first step toward addressing AI’s environmental inequity by fairly balancing its regional environmental impact. Concretely, we focus on the carbon and water footprints of AI model inference and propose equity-aware geographical load balancing (eGLB) to explicitly minimize AI’s highest environmental cost across all the regions. The consideration of environmental equity creates substantial algorithmic challenges as the optimal GLB decisions require complete offline information that is lacking practice. To address the challenges, we introduce auxiliary variables and optimize GLB decisions online based on dual mirror descent. In addition to analyzing the performance of eGLB theoretically, we run trace-based empirical simulations by considering a set of geographically distributed data centers that serve inference requests for a large language AI model. The results demonstrate that existing GLB approaches may amplify environmental inequity while eGLB can significantly reduce the regional disparity in terms of carbon and water footprints.more » « less
-
AbstractRecent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) and multimodal learning analytics (MMLA) have allowed for new and creative ways of leveraging AI to support K12 students' collaborative learning in STEM+C domains. To date, there is little evidence of AI methods supporting students' collaboration in complex, open‐ended environments. AI systems are known to underperform humans in (1) interpreting students' emotions in learning contexts, (2) grasping the nuances of social interactions and (3) understanding domain‐specific information that was not well‐represented in the training data. As such, combined human and AI (ie, hybrid) approaches are needed to overcome the current limitations of AI systems. In this paper, we take a first step towards investigating how a human‐AI collaboration between teachers and researchers using an AI‐generated multimodal timeline can guide and support teachers' feedback while addressing students' STEM+C difficulties as they work collaboratively to build computational models and solve problems. In doing so, we present a framework characterizing the human component of our human‐AI partnership as a collaboration between teachers and researchers. To evaluate our approach, we present our timeline to a high school teacher and discuss the key insights gleaned from our discussions. Our case study analysis reveals the effectiveness of an iterative approach to using human‐AI collaboration to address students' STEM+C challenges: the teacher can use the AI‐generated timeline to guide formative feedback for students, and the researchers can leverage the teacher's feedback to help improve the multimodal timeline. Additionally, we characterize our findings with respect to two events of interest to the teacher: (1) when the students cross adifficulty threshold,and (2) thepoint of intervention, that is, when the teacher (or system) should intervene to provide effective feedback. It is important to note that the teacher explained that there should be a lag between (1) and (2) to give students a chance to resolve their own difficulties. Typically, such a lag is not implemented in computer‐based learning environments that provide feedback. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicCollaborative, open‐ended learning environments enhance students' STEM+C conceptual understanding and practice, but they introduce additional complexities when students learn concepts spanning multiple domains.Recent advances in generative AI and MMLA allow for integrating multiple datastreams to derive holistic views of students' states, which can support more informed feedback mechanisms to address students' difficulties in complex STEM+C environments.Hybrid human‐AI approaches can help address collaborating students' STEM+C difficulties by combining the domain knowledge, emotional intelligence and social awareness of human experts with the general knowledge and efficiency of AI.What this paper addsWe extend a previous human‐AI collaboration framework using a hybrid intelligence approach to characterize the human component of the partnership as a researcher‐teacher partnership and present our approach as a teacher‐researcher‐AI collaboration.We adapt an AI‐generated multimodal timeline to actualize our human‐AI collaboration by pairing the timeline with videos of students encountering difficulties, engaging in active discussions with a high school teacher while watching the videos to discern the timeline's utility in the classroom.From our discussions with the teacher, we define two types ofinflection pointsto address students' STEM+C difficulties—thedifficulty thresholdand theintervention point—and discuss how thefeedback latency intervalseparating them can inform educator interventions.We discuss two ways in which our teacher‐researcher‐AI collaboration can help teachers support students encountering STEM+C difficulties: (1) teachers using the multimodal timeline to guide feedback for students, and (2) researchers using teachers' input to iteratively refine the multimodal timeline.Implications for practice and/or policyOur case study suggests that timeline gaps (ie, disengaged behaviour identified by off‐screen students, pauses in discourse and lulls in environment actions) are particularly important for identifying inflection points and formulating formative feedback.Human‐AI collaboration exists on a dynamic spectrum and requires varying degrees of human control and AI automation depending on the context of the learning task and students' work in the environment.Our analysis of this human‐AI collaboration using a multimodal timeline can be extended in the future to support students and teachers in additional ways, for example, designing pedagogical agents that interact directly with students, developing intervention and reflection tools for teachers, helping teachers craft daily lesson plans and aiding teachers and administrators in designing curricula.more » « less
