CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Struggle for AI’s Recognition: Understanding the Normative Implications of Gender Bias in AI with Honneth’s Theory of Recognition

Waelen, Rosalie, Wieczorek, Michał·2022·Philosophy & Technology
DOI 10.1007/s13347-022-00548-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-022-00548-w

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Allen, A. (2021). Recognizing ambivalence: Honneth, Butler, and philosophical anthropology. In H. Ikäheimo, K. Lepold, & T. Stahl (Eds.), Recognition and ambivalence (pp. 99–127). Columbia University Press.
  2. Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 77–91.
  3. Butler, J. (2008). Taking another’s view: Ambivalent implications. In M. Jay (Ed.), Reification: A new look at an old idea (pp. 97–119). Oxford University Press. · DOI
  4. Butler, J. (2021). Recognition and the social bond: A response to Axel Honneth. In H. Ikäheimo, K. Lepold, & T. Stahl (Eds.), Recognition and ambivalence (pp. 31–53). Columbia University Press.
  5. Cobbe, J. (2020). Algorithmic censorship by social platforms: Power and resistance. Philosophy and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00429-0 · DOI
  6. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Criado Perez, C. (2020). Invisible women. Vintage.
  8. Danaher, J., Nyholm, S., & Earp, B. D. (2018). The quantified relationship. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(2), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1409823 · DOI
  9. Dastin, J. (2018). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUKKCN1MK08G. Accessed 1 June 2022. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Dignum, V. (2020). Responsibility and artificial intelligence. In M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI (pp. 215–231). Oxford University Press.
  11. Fosch-Villaronga, E., Poulsen, A., Søraa, R. A., & Custers, B. H. M. (2021). A little bird told me your gender: Gender inferences in social media. Information Processing and Management, 58(3), 102541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102541 · DOI
  12. Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? Verso. · DOI
  13. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. Computer Ethics, 14(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315259697-23 · DOI
  14. Gertz, N. (2018). Hegel, the struggle for recognition, and robots. Techné Research in Philosophy and Technology, 22(2), 138–157. · DOI
  15. Honneth, A. (1998). Democracy as reflexive cooperation: John Dewey and the theory of democracy today. Political Theory, 26(6), 763–783. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Honneth, A. (2007). Moral consciousness and class domination. Polity Press.
  17. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press.
  18. Honneth, A. (2008). Reification: A new look at an old idea (M. Jay, Ed.). Oxford University Press. · DOI
  19. Imana, B., Korolova, A., & Heidemann, J. (2021). Auditing for Discrimination in Algorithms Delivering Job Ads. Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2021, 3767–3778. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3450077 · DOI
  20. Jiang, S. & Ngien, A. (2020). The effects of Instagram use, social comparison, and self-esteem on social anxiety: A survey study in Singapore. Social Media + Society. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120912488 · DOI
  21. Kleinig, J., & Evans, N. G. (2013). Human Flourishing, Human Dignity, and Human Rights. Law and Philosophy, 32(5), 539–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9153-2 · DOI
  22. Koskinen, H. J. (2019). Mediated recognition: Suggestions towards an articulation. In M. Kahlos, H. J. Koskinen, & R. Palmén (Eds.), Recognition and religion: Contemporary and historical perspectives (pp. 34–50). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  23. Kressbach, M. (2019). Period hacks: Menstruating in the big data paradigm. Television and New Media, 00, 1–21.
  24. Kristensen, D. B., Kuruoglu, A. P., & Banke, S. (2021). Tracking towards care: Relational affordances of self-tracking in gym culture. Sociology of Health and Illness, 43(7), 1598–1613. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13352 · DOI
  25. Lepold, K. How should we understand the ambivalence of recognition? Revisiting the link between recognition and subjection in the works of Althusser and Butler. In H. Ikäheimo, K. Lepold, & T. Stahl (Eds.), Recognition and ambivalence (pp. 129–59). Columbia University Press.
  26. Lupton, D. (2013). Quantifying the body: Monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies. Critical Public Health, 23(4), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2013.794931 · DOI
  27. Lupton, D. (2015). Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Culture Health and Sexuality, 17(4), 440–453. · DOI
  28. McNay, L. (2021). Historicizing recognition: From ontology to teleology. In H. Ikäheimo, K. Lepold, & T. Stahl (Eds.), Recognition and ambivalence (pp. 69–97). Columbia University Press.
  29. Owens, J., & Cribb, A. (2019). ‘My Fitbit thinks i can do better!’ Do health promoting wearable technologies support personal autonomy? Philosophy and Technology, 32(1), 23–38. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0266-2 · DOI
  30. Verbeek, P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. The University of Chicago Press. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Wachter-Boettcher, S. (2017). Technically wrong: Sexist apps, biased algorithms, and other threats of toxic tech (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.
  32. Waelen, R. (2022). The struggle for recognition in the age of facial recognition technology. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00146-8 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Waelen, R., & Wieczorek, M.
ORCID
Waelen, Rosalie
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-06
Volume
35
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 2210-5433
  • 2210-5441
DOI
10.1007/s13347-022-00548-w
Cited by
38
References
5
Language
en
Licence
Funders
h2020 marie skłodowska-curie actions (no. 813497)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review