CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Digitalization, Law, and Regulation

Ethical machines: The human-centric use of artificial intelligence

Open access
Lepri, Bruno, Oliver, Nuria, Pentland, Alex·2021·iScience
DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102249PMC PMC7973859
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Today's increased availability of large amounts of human behavioral data and advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are contributing to a growing reliance on algorithms to make consequential decisions for humans, including those related to access to credit or medical treatments, hiring, etc. Algorithmic decision-making processes might lead to more objective decisions than those made by humans who may be influenced by prejudice, conflicts of interest, or fatigue. However, algorithmic decision-making has been criticized for its potential to lead to privacy invasion, information asymmetry, opacity, and discrimination. In this paper, we describe available technical solutions in three large areas that we consider to be of critical importance to achieve a human-centric AI: (1) privacy and data ownership; (2) accountability and transparency; and (3) fairness. We also highlight the criticality and urgency to engage multi-disciplinary teams of researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and citizens to co-develop and evaluate in the real-world algorithmic decision-making processes designed to maximize fairness, accountability, and transparency while respecting privacy.

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 · 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102249

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Human-compatible, human-centric approaches, AI for social good, and human computation or interactive machine learning are computing paradigms aligned with the human agency and oversight requirement.

    “For the preservation of human rights, humancompatible [20], human-centric approaches [14,21,22], AI for social good [7,23] and human computation or interactive machine learning [24] are computing paradigms aligned with this requirement.”

    From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

  • The novel neurorights regulation pioneered by Chile is a role model in the direction of regulating brain technology.

    “A role model in this direction is the novel neurorights regulation pioneered by Chile.”

    From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction and Conclusion discuss ethical AI and algorithmic governance, but neither addresses Chile’s neurorights regulation or brain technology. Searches for Chilean neurorights regulation and neurotechnology found no relevant passage in our copy; no page numbers were provided. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Chile's neuroprotection agenda (which is closely followed up by Spain) leads the way to the regulation of brain technology and legislation of advances in AI-supported medicine and science from a human rights' point of view.

    “Their neuroprotection agenda (which is closely followed up by Spain) leads the way to the regulation of brain technology and legislation of advances in AI-supported medicine and science from a human rights' point of view.”

    From Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI principles, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction discusses ethical-AI guidelines, and the Conclusion discusses human-centric AI, but neither addresses Chile’s neuroprotection agenda or Spain’s response to it. Searches for Chile, Spain, neurorights, and brain-technology regulation found no passage in our copy that verifies the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 227 · Cited by 149

Research works printed but not linked: 135

  1. Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I., McMahan, H., Mironov, I., Talwar, K. and Zhang, L. (2016), Deep learning with differential privacy, in ‘Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’16)’, pp. 308–318.
  2. Abdul, A., Vermeulen, J., Wang, D., Lim, B. and Kankanhalli, M. (2018), Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda, in ‘Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 1–18.
  3. Ahn Y. Lin Y.R. Fairsight: visual analytics for fairness in decision making IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph 26 2020 1086 1095 31425083
  4. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., Iqbal, S., Bennett, P., Inkpen, K., et al., Teevan, J., Kikin-Gil, R. and Horvitz, E. (2019), Guidelines for human-ai interaction, in ‘Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 1–13.
  5. Bach S. Binder A. Montavon G. Klauschen F. Müller K.-R. On pixel-wise explanations for non-linear classifier decisions by layer-wise relevance propagation PLoS One 10 2015 e0130140 26161953 PMC4498753
  6. Bakken D. Rarameswaran R. Blough D. Franz A. Palmer T. Data obfuscation: anonymity and desensitization of usable data sets IEEE Security Privacy 2 2004 34 41
  7. Barocas, S., Selbst, A. and Raghavan, M. (2020), The hidden assumptions behind counterfactual explanations and principal reasons, in ‘Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency’, pp. 80–89.
  8. Barry B. Theories of Justice 1991 University of California Press
  9. Bastani O. Kim C. Bastani H. Interpreting Black Box Models via Model Extraction arxiv 2017 arXiv:1705.08504 · arXiv
  10. Bau, D., Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Oliva, A. and Torralba, A. (2017), Network dissection: Quantifying interpretability of deep visual representations, in ‘Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2017)’, pp. 3319–3327.
  11. Blumenstock J. Cadamuro G. On R. Predicting poverty and wealth from mobile phone metadata Science 350 2015 1073 1076 26612950
  12. Casalicchio, G., Molnar, C. and Bischl, B. (2018), Visualizing the feature importance for black box models, in ‘Proceedings of the Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases’, pp. 655–670.
  13. Cath C. Wachter S. Mittelstadt B. Taddeo M. Floridi L. ‘Artificial intelligence and the ’good society’: the us, eu, and uk approach’ Sci. Eng. Ethics 24 2018 505 528 28353045
  14. Chaudhuri, K. and Monteleoni, C. (2008), Privacy-preserving logistic regression, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2008)’.
  15. Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S. and Huq, A. (2017), Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness, in ‘Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2017)’.
  16. Cormode, G. and Srivastava, D. (2009), Anonymized data: Generation, models, usage, in ‘Proceedings of the 2009 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management Of Data’, pp. 1015–1018.
  17. Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 14 2009 27 35 19669918
  18. Dabkowski, P. and Gal, Y. (2017), Real time image saliency for black box classifiers, in ‘Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017)’, pp. 6967–6976.
  19. Danziger S. Levav J. Avnaim-Pess L. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 108 2011 6889 6892 21482790 PMC3084045
  20. Datta, A., Tschantz, M.C. and Datta, A. (2015), Automated experiments on ad privacy settings, in ‘Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies’, pp. 92–112.
  21. de Montjoye, Y.-A., Quoidbach, J., Robic, F. and Pentland, A. (2013b), Predicting personality using novel mobile phone-based metrics, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction’, pp. 48–55.
  22. de Montjoye Y.-A. Radaelli L. Singh V. Pentland A. Unique in the shopping mall: on the re-identifiability of credit card metadata Science 347 2015 536 539 25635097
  23. de Montjoye Y.-A. Shmueli E. Wang S. Pentland A. Openpds: protecting the privacy of metadata through safeanswers PLoS One 9 2014 e98790 25007320 PMC4090126
  24. Dhurandhar, A., Chen, P.-Y., Luss, R., Tu, C.-C., Ting, P., Shanmugam, K. and Das, P. (2018), Explanations based on the missing: Towards contrastive explanations with pertinent negatives, in ‘Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018)’.
  25. Dong, Y., Su, H., Zhu, J. and Zhang, B. (2017), Improving interpretability of deep neural networks with semantic information, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2017)’, pp. 4306–4314.
  26. Doshi-Velez F. Kim B. Roadmap for a Rigorous Science of Interpretability arxiv 2017 arXiv:1702.08608 · arXiv
  27. Dowlin, N., Gilad-Bachrach, R., Laine, K., Lauter, K., Naehrig, M. and Wernsing, J. (2016), Cryptonets: Applying neural networks to encrypted data with high throughput and accuracy, in ‘Proceedings of 2016 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2016)’, pp. 201–210.
  28. Dubey, A. and Pentland, A. (2020), Private and byzantine-proof federated decision making, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2020)’.
  29. Dwork, C. (2008), Differential privacy: A survey of results, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Applications of Models of Computation’, pp. 1–19.
  30. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O. and Zemel, R. (2012), Fairness throug awareness, in ‘Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference’, pp. 214–226.
  31. Eagle N. Macy M. Claxton R. Network diversity and economic development Science 328 2010 1029 1031 20489022
  32. Eubanks V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor 2018 St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
  33. Eykholt, K., Evtimov, I., Fernandes, E., Li, B., Rahmati, A., Xiao, C., Prakash, A., Kohno, T. and Song, D. (2018), Robust physical-world attacks on deep learning visual classification, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2018)’, pp. 1625–1634.
  34. Feldman, M., Friedler, S., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C. and Venkatasubramanian, S. (2015), Certifying and removing disparate impact, in ‘Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (kDD 2015)’, pp. 259–268.
  35. Fiske S. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination Gilbert D. Fiske S. Lindzey G. Handbook of Social Psychology 1998 McGraw-Hill 357 411
  36. Fong, R., Patrick, M. and Vedaldi, A. (2019), Understanding deep networks via extremal perturbations and smooth masks, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (CVPR 2019)’, pp. 2950–2958.
  37. Fong, R. and Vedaldi, A. (2017), Interpretable explanations of black boxes by meaningful perturbation, in ‘Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV 2017)’, pp. 3449–3457.
  38. Furlanello, T., Lipton, Z., Tschannen, M., Itti, L. and Anandkumar, A. (2018), Born again neural networks, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018)’, pp. 1602–1611.
  39. Gillespie T. The relevance of algorithms Gillespie T. Boczkowski P. Foot K. Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society 2014 MIT Press 167 193
  40. Ginsberg J. Mohebbi M. Patel R. Brammer L. Smolinski M. Brilliant L. Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data Nature 457 2009 1012 1014 19020500
  41. Gladstone J. Matz S. Lemaire A. Can psychological traits be inferred from spending? evidence from transaction data Psychol. Sci. 30 2019 1087 1096 31166847
  42. Grgic-Hlaca, N., Zafar, M., Gummadi, K. and Weller, A. (2018), Beyond distributive fairness in algorithmic decision making: Feature selection for procedurally fair learning, in ‘Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2018)’, pp. 51–60.
  43. Guidotti R. Monreale A. Ruggieri S. Turini F. Giannotti F. Pedreschi D. A survey of methods for explaining black box models ACM Comput. Surv. 51 2018 1 42
  44. Gummadi, K. and Heidari, H. (2019), Economic theories of distributive justice for fair machine learning, in ‘Companion Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web (WWW 2019) Conference’, pp. 1301–1302.
  45. Hailesilassie T. Rule Extraction Algorithm for Deep Neural Networks: A Review arxiv 2016 arXiv:1610.05267 · arXiv
  46. Hardt, M., Price, E. and Srebro, N. (2016), Equality of opportunity in supervised learning, in ‘Proceedings of the International on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2016)’, pp. 3315–3323.
  47. Hayes, J. and Ohrimenko, O. (2018), Contamination attacks and mitigationin multi-party machine learning, in ‘Proceedings of the 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018)’, pp. 6602–6614.
  48. Heidari, H., Loi, M., Gummadi, K. and Krause, A. (2019), A moral framework for understanding of fair ml through economic models of equality of opportunity, in ‘Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency’, pp. 181–190.
  49. Hillebrand, M., I., K., Peleja, F. and Oliver, N. (2020), ‘Mobisenseus: Inferring aggregate objective and subjective well-being from mobile data’, Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2020) pp. 1818–1825.
  50. Hinton G. Vinyals O. Dean J. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network arxiv 2015 arXiv:1503.02531 · arXiv
  51. Hoffman R. Klein G. Explaining explanation, part 1: theoretical foundations IEEE Intell. Syst. 3 2017 68 73
  52. Hohman, F., Wongsuphasawat, K., Kery, M. and Patel, K. (2020), Understanding and visualizing data iteration in machine learning, in ‘Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 1–13.
  53. Horvitz, E. (1999), Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces, in ‘Proceedings of the 1999 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 159–166.
  54. Jannach, D. and Adomavicius, G. (2016), Recommendations with a purpose, in ‘Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys)’, pp. 7–10.
  55. Joseph M. Kearns M. Morgenstern J. Neel S. Roth A. Rawlsian Fairness for Machine Learning arxiv 2016 arXiv:1610.09559 · arXiv
  56. Kahneman D. Egan P. Thinking, Fast and Slow Vol. 1 2011 Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  57. Kairouz P. McMahan H. Avent B. Bellet A. Bennis M. Bhagoji A. Bonawitz K. Charles Z. Cormode G. Cummings R. Toward Trustworthy Ai Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims arxiv 2019 arXiv:1912.04977 · arXiv
  58. Kamiran, F., Calders, T. and Pechenizkiy, M. (2010), Discrimination aware decision tree learning, in ‘Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2010)’, pp. 869–874.
  59. Kamishima, T., Akaho, S., Asoh, H. and Sakuma, J. (2011), Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice remover regularizer, in ‘Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECMLPKDD 2011), Part II’, pp. 35–50.
  60. Karimi, A.-H., Barthe, G., Balle, B. and Valera, I. (2020), Model-agnostic counterfactual explanations for consequential decisions, in ‘Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2020)’, pp. 895–905.
  61. Kearns M. Roth A. The Ethical Algorithm 2020 Oxford University Press
  62. Kesarwani, M., Mukhoty, B., Arya, V. and Mehta, S. (2018), Model extraction warning in mlaas paradigm, in ‘Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2018)’, pp. 371–380.
  63. Kim, B., Khanna, R. and Koyejo, O. (2016), Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability, in ‘Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2016)’, pp. 2280–2288.
  64. Kim, B., Rudin, C. and Shah, J. (2014), The bayesian case model: A generative approach for case-based reasoning and prototype classification, in ‘Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2014)’, pp. 1952–1960.
  65. Kim, B., Wattenberg, M., Gilmer, J., Cai, C., Wexler, J. and Viegas, F. (2018), Interpretability beyond feature attribution: Quantitative testing with concept activation vectors (tcav), in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018)’, pp. 2673–2682.
  66. Kim T. Kang D. Pulli K. Choi J. Training with the Invisibles: Obfuscating Images to Share Safely for Learning Visual Recognition Models arXiv 2019 arXiv:1901.00098 · arXiv
  67. Kleinberg J. Ludwig J. Mullainathan S. Sunstein C. Algorithms as discrimination detectors Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 117 2020 30096 30100 32723823 PMC7720101
  68. Kosinski M. Stillwell D. Graepel T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 110 2013 5802 5805 23479631 PMC3625324
  69. Krause, J., Perer, A. and Ng, K. (2016), Interacting with predictions: Visual inspection of black-box machine learning models, in ‘Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 5686–5697.
  70. Krening S. Harrison B. Feigh K. Isbell C. Riedl M. Thomaz A. Learning from explanations using sentiment and advice in rl IEEE Trans. Cogn. Develop. Syst. 9 2016 44 55
  71. Kroll J.A. Huey J. Barocas S. Felten E.W. Reidenberg J.R. Robinson D.G. Yu H. Accountable Algorithms 165 2017 University of Pennsylvania Law Review
  72. Lai S. Ruktanonchai N. Zhou L. Prosper O. Luo W. Floyd J. Wesolowski A. Santillana M. Zhang C. Du X. Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain covid-19 in China Nature 585 2020 410 413 32365354 PMC7116778
  73. Lakkaraju, H., Bach, S. and Leskovec, J. (2016), Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction, in ‘Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2016)’, pp. 1675–1684. PMC5108651 27853627
  74. Lee, M. and Baykal, S. (2017), Algorithmic mediation in group decisions: Fairness perceptions of algorithmically mediated vs. discussion-based social division, in ‘Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2017)’, pp. 1035–1048.
  75. Lee, M., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E. and Dabbish, L. (2015), Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers, in ‘Proceedings of the 2015 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 1603–1612.
  76. Li, A., Guo, J., Yang, H. and Chen, Y. (2020), Deepobfuscator: Adversarial training framework for privacy-preserving image classification, in ‘Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV 2020)’.
  77. Linsley D. Scheibler D. Eberhardt S. Serre T. Global-and-local Attention Networks for Visual Recognition arxiv 2018 arxiv:1805.08819 · arXiv
  78. Lombrozo T. The structure and function of explanations Trends Cogn. Sci. 10 2006 464 470 16942895
  79. Louizos, C., Shalit, U., Mooij, J., Sontag, D., Zemel, R. and Welling, M. (2017), Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017)’, pp. 6446–6456.
  80. Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Abowd, J., Gehrke, J. and Vilhuber, L. (2008), Privacy: Theory meets practice on the map, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering’, pp. 277–286.
  81. Madras, D., Pitassi, T. and Zemel, R. (2018), Predict responsibly: Improving fairness and accuracy by 940 learning to defer, in ‘Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems’, pp. 6147–6157.
  82. Mahendran, A. and Vedaldi, A. (2015), Understanding deep image representations by inverting them, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2015)’, pp. 5188–5196.
  83. Marcinkowski, F., Kieslich, K., Starke, C. and Lunich, M. (2020), Implications of ai (un-) fairness in higher education admissions: the effects of perceived ai (un-) fairness on exit, voice and organizational reputation, in ‘Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency’, pp. 122–130.
  84. Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. and Dean, J. (2013), Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality, in ‘Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2013)’, pp. 3111–3119.
  85. Nasr, M., Shokri, R. and Houmansadr, A. (2019), Comprehensive privacy analysis of deep learning: Passive and active white-box inference attacks against centralized and federated learning, in ‘Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P 2019)’, pp. 739–753.
  86. Noble S.U. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism 2018 NYU Press 34709921
  87. Norman D. How might people interact with agents Commun. ACM 37 1994 68 71
  88. Ofli F. Meier P. Imran M. Castillo C. Tuia D. Rey N. Briant J. Millet P. Reinhard F. Parkan M. Joost S. Combining human computing and machine learning to make sense of big (aerial) data for disaster response Big Data 4 2016 47 59 27441584
  89. Pan W. Cebrian M. Kim T. Fowler J. Pentland A. Modeling dynamical influence in human interaction IEEE Signal. Process. Mag. 29 2012 77 86
  90. Park S. Matic A. Garg K. Oliver N. When simpler data does not imply less information: a study of user profiling scenarios with constrained view of mobile http (s) traffic ACM Trans. Web 12 2018 1 23
  91. Pasquale F. The Black Blox Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information 2015 Harvard University Press
  92. Pastor-Escuredo, D., Torres Fernandez, Y., Bauer, J., Wadhwa, A., Castro-Correa, C., Romanoff, L., Lee, J., Rutherford, A., Frias-Martinez, V., Oliver, N., E., F.-M. and Luengo-Oroz, M. (2014), Flooding through the lens of mobile phone activity, in ‘IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC 2014)’, pp. 279–286.
  93. Patel, K., Drucker, S., Fogarty, J., Kapoor, A. and Tan, D. (2011), Using multiple models to understand data, in ‘Proceedings of the 2011 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011)’, pp. 1723–1728.
  94. Pedreschi, D., Giannotti, F., Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S. and Turrini, F. (2019), Meaningful explanations of black box ai decision systems, in ‘Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2019)’, Vol. 33, pp. 9780–9784.
  95. Pentland A. ‘Society’s nervous system: building effective government, energy, and public health systems’ IEEE Computer 45 2012 31 38
  96. Quercia, D., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. and Crowcroft, J. (2011), Our twitter profiles, our selves: Predicting personality with twitter, in ‘Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom 2011)’, pp. 180–185.
  97. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice 1971 Harvard University Press
  98. Rawls J. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement 2001 Harvard University Press
  99. Ribeiro, M., Singh, S. and Guestrin, C. (2016), “why should I trust you?”: Explaining the predictions of any classifier, in ‘Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD 2016)’, pp. 1135–1144.
  100. Roemer J. Theories of Distributive Justice 1996 Harvard University Press
  101. Roemer J. Equality of Opportunity 1998 Harvard University Press
  102. Rudin C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead Nat. Mach. Intell. 1 2019 206 215 PMC9122117 35603010
  103. Salganik M. Lundberg I. Kindel A. Ahearn C. Al-Ghoneim K. Almaatouq A. Altschul D. Brand J. Carnegie N. Compton R. Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 117 2020 8398 8403 32229555 PMC7165437
  104. Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K. and Langbort, C. (2014), Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms, in ‘Proceedings of Data and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry, a preconference at the 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association’.
  105. Sarkar, S., Weyde, T., Garcez, A., Slabaugh, G., Dragicevic, S. and Percy, C. (2016), Accuracy and interpretability trade-offs in machine learning applied to safer gambling, in ‘Proceedings of CoCo@NIPS’.
  106. Schwartz H. Eichstaedt J. Kern M. Dziurzynski L. Ramones S. Agrawal M. Shah A. Kosinski M. Stillwell D. Seligman M. Ungar L. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: the open-vocabulary approach PLoS One 8 2013 e73791 24086296 PMC3783449
  107. Segalin, C., Celli, F., Polonio, L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Sebe, N., Cristani, M. and Lepri, B. (2017), What your facebook profile picture reveals about your personality, in ‘Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia (ACM MM 2017)’, pp. 460–468.
  108. Shneiderman B. Opinion: the dangers of faulty, biased, or malicious algorithms requires inde-pendent oversigh Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 113 2016 13538 13540 27911762 PMC5137777
  109. Shokri, R. and Shmatikov, V. (2015), Privacy-preserving deep learning, in ‘Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’15)’, pp. 1310–1321.
  110. Siting, Z., Wenxing, H., Ning, Z. and Fan, Y. (2012), Job recommender systems: A survey, in ‘Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Science Education (ICCSE)’, pp. 920–924.
  111. Song, C., Ristenpart, T. and Shmatikov, V. (2017), Machine learning models that remember too much, in ‘Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’17)’, pp. 587–601.
  112. Song, L., Shokri, R. and Mittal, P. (2019), Privacy risks of securing machine learning models against adversarial examples, in ‘Proceedings of the 2019 ACMSIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’19)’, pp. 241–257.
  113. Soto, V., Frias-Martinez, V., Virseda, J. and Frias-Martinez, E. (2011), Prediction of socioeconomic levels using cell phone records, in ‘Proceedings of the International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (UMAP 2011)’, pp. 377–388.
  114. Srivastava, M., Heidari, H. and Krause, A. (2019), Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning, in ‘Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery Data Mining’.
  115. Stachl C. Au Q. Schoedel R. Gosling S. Harari G. Buschek D. Völkel S. Schuwerk T. Oldemeier M. Ullmann T. Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 17 2020 17680 17687 PMC7395458 32665436
  116. Staiano, J., Lepri, B., Aharony, N., Pianesi, F., Sebe, N. and Pentland, A. (2012), Friends don’t lie: inferring personality traits from social network structure, in ‘Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing’, pp. 321–330.
  117. Staiano, J., Oliver, N., Lepri, B., de Oliveira, R., Caraviello, M. and Sebe, N. (2014), Money walks: a human-centric study on the economics of personal mobile data, in ‘Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing’, pp. 583–594.
  118. Steele J. Sundsoy P. Pezzulo C. Alegana V. Bird T. Blumenstock J. Bjelland J. Engø-Monsen K. de Montjoye Y.-A. Iqbal A. Mapping poverty using mobile phone and satellite data J. R. Soc. Interface 14 2017 20160690 28148765 PMC5332562
  119. Tramér, F., Zhang, F., Juels, A., Reiter, M. and Ristenpart, T. (2016), Stealing machine learning models via prediction apis, in ‘Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium’, pp. 601–618.
  120. Tverksy A. Kahnemann D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases Science 185 1974 1124 1131 17835457
  121. Ulyanov, D., Vedaldi, A. and Lempitsky, V. (2018), Deep image prior, in ‘Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2018)’, pp. 9446–9454.
  122. Venerandi, A., Quattrone, G., Capra, L., Quercia, D. and Saez-Trumper, D. (2015), Measuring urban deprivation from user generated content, in ‘Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW 2015)’.
  123. Wang, B. and Zhenqiang Gong, N. (2018), Stealing hyperparameters in machine learning, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P)’, pp. 36–52.
  124. Wang, D., Yang, Q., Abdul, A. and Lim, B. (2019), Designing theory-driven user-centric explainable ai, in ‘Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems’, pp. 1–15.
  125. Wei Koh, P. and Liang, P. (2017), Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions, in ‘Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2017)’, pp. 1885–1894.
  126. Wesolowski A. Qureshi T. Boni M. Sundsøy P. Johansson M. Rasheed S. Engo-Monsen K. Buckee C. Impact of human mobility on the emergence of dengue epidemics in Pakistan Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 112 2015 11887 11892 26351662 PMC4586847
  127. Wilson R. Erbach-Schoenengerg E. Albert M. Power D. Tudge S. Gonzalez M. Guthrie S. Chamberlain H. Brooks C. Hughes C. Rapid and near real-time assessments of population displacement using mobile phone data following disasters: the 2015 Nepal earthquake PLoS Curr. 8 2016 ecurrents.dis.d073fbece328e4c39087bc086d694b5c PMC4779046 26981327
  128. Xu K. Park D. Yi C. Sutton C. Interpreting Deep Classifier by Visual Distillation of Dark Knowledge arxiv 2018 arXiv:1803.04042 · arXiv
  129. Yang Q. Liu Y. Chen T. Tong Y. Federated machine learning: concept and applications ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 10 2019
  130. Yeh, C.-K., Kim, J., Yen, I.-H. and Ravikumar, P. (2018), Representer point selection for explaining deep neural networks, in ‘Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018)’, pp. 9311–9321.
  131. Zeiler, M. and Fergus, R. (2014), Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks, in ‘Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV 2014)’, pp. 818–833.
  132. Zemel, R., Wu, Y., Swersky, K., Pitassi, T. and Dwork, C. (2012), Learning fair representation, in ‘Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2012)’, pp. 325–333.
  133. Zhang Q. Sun K. Chinazzi M. Pastore y Piontti A. Dean N. Rojas D. Merler S. Mistry D. Poletti P. Rossi L. Spread of zika virus in the americas Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 114 2017 4334 4343 PMC5465916 28442561
  134. Zhang, Q., Yang, Y., Ma, H. and Wu, Y. (2019), Interpreting cnns via decision trees, in ‘Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2019)’, pp. 6261–6270.
  135. Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Lapedriza, A., Oliva, A. and Torralba, A. (2016), Learning deep features for discriminative localization, in ‘Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2016)’, pp. 2921–2929.

Authors
Lepri, B., Oliver, N., & Pentland, A.
Affiliations
  • Fondazione Bruno Kessler (IT)
  • ELLIS Alicante (ES)
  • MIT Media Lab (US)
Corresponding author
Lepri, Bruno
ORCID
Venue
iScience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
102249
ISSN
2589-0042 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.isci.2021.102249
PMC
PMC7973859
OpenAlex
W3134165704
Cited by
149
References
227
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 5
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • iScience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Generalitat Valenciana
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic fairness, transparency and accountability, privacy, data ownership, algorithmic discrimination, opacity, information asymmetry

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