Cited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AIGame Theory and Voting SystemsRecommender Systems and Techniques

Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare

Manish Raghavan·2023·The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3603195.3603202

Cites

239 of 239 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is growing evidence that the introduction of LLM content in information ecosystems can contribute to output homogenization.

    “There is growing evidence that the introduction of LLM content in information ecosystems can contribute to to output homogenization (Liu et al., 2024;Bommasani et al., 2022;Kleinberg & Raghavan, 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 245 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raghavan, M.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Manish Raghavan
Venue
The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-09-07
OpenAlex
W6940665416
Cited by
0
References
245
FWCI
0.00
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
algorithmic monoculture, social welfare (welfare economics), algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic fairness, algorithmic transparency

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