CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Principles to Practices for Responsible AI: Closing the Gap

Schiff, Daniel, Rakova, Bogdana, Ayesh, Aladdin, Fanti, Anat, Lennon, Michael·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2006.04707arXiv 2006.04707
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Companies have considered adoption of various high-level artificial intelligence (AI) principles for responsible AI, but there is less clarity on how to implement these principles as organizational practices. This paper reviews the principles-to-practices gap. We outline five explanations for this gap ranging from a disciplinary divide to an overabundance of tools. In turn, we argue that an impact assessment framework which is broad, operationalizable, flexible, iterative, guided, and participatory is a promising approach to close the principles-to-practices gap. Finally, to help practitioners with applying these recommendations, we review a case study of AI's use in forest ecosystem restoration, demonstrating how an impact assessment framework can translate into effective and responsible AI practices.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2006.04707

Cites

10 of 10 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

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G. Robinson, 'Roles for com- puting in social change', in Proceedings of the 2020 Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 20, p. 252260. Association for Computing Machinery, (Jan 2020).
  2. Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada, 'Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)', IEEE Access, 6, 52138-52160, (2018). Conference Name: IEEE Access.
  3. David H. Autor, 'Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The His- tory and Future of Workplace Automation', Journal of Eco- nomic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30, (August 2015).
  4. Saeed Asadi Bagloee, Madjid Tavana, Mohsen Asadi, and Tracey Oliver, 'Autonomous vehicles: challenges, opportuni- ties, and future implications for transportation policies', Jour- nal of Modern Transportation, 24(4), 284-303, (December 2016).
  5. Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lo- hia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mo- jsilovic, Seema Nagar, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, John Richards, Diptikalyan Saha, Prasanna Sattigeri, Monin- der Singh, Kush R. Varshney, and Yunfeng Zhang, 'AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Bias', arXiv:1810.01943 [cs], (October 2018). arXiv: 1810.01943. · arXiv
  6. Elettra Bietti, 'From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy', in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency, FAT* '20, pp. 210-219, Barcelona, Spain, (January 2020). Association for Computing Machinery.
  7. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai, 'Man is to Computer Program- mer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embed- dings', in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, eds., D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. V. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, 4349-4357, Curran Associates, Inc., (2016).
  8. Raja Chatila and John C. Havens, The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, 1116, Intelli- gent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineer- ing, Springer International Publishing, 2019.
  9. Virginia Dignum, 'Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue', Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 1-3, (March 2018).
  10. Luciano Floridi and Josh Cowls, 'A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society', Harvard Data Science Review, (June 2019).
  11. Batya Friedman, David G. Hendry, and Alan Borning, 'A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods', Foundations and Trends in HumanComputer Interaction, 11(2), 63-125, (November 2017). Publisher: Now Publishers, Inc.
  12. Natalie Garrett, Nathan Beard, and Casey Fiesler, 'More Than "If Time Allows": The Role of Ethics in AI Education', in Pro- ceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Soci- ety, pp. 272-278, New York NY USA, (February 2020). ACM.
  13. Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi, 'A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models', ACM Computing Surveys, 51(5), 93:1-93:42, (August 2018).
  14. Anna Jobin, Marcello Ienca, and Effy Vayena, 'The global landscape of ai ethics guidelines', Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(99), 389399, (Sep 2019).
  15. Ugur Kursuncu, Manas Gaur, and Amit Sheth, 'Knowledge in- fused learning (k-il): Towards deep incorporation of knowledge in deep learning', arXiv:1912.00512 [cs], (Feb 2020). arXiv: 1912.00512. · arXiv
  16. Derek Leben, 'Normative Principles for Evaluating Fairness in Machine Learning', in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Confer- ence on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '20, pp. 86-92, New York, NY, USA, (February 2020). Association for Computing Machinery.
  17. Christopher D Lippitt, John Rogan, Zhe Li, J Ronald Eastman, and Trevor G Jones, 'Mapping selective logging in mixed de- ciduous forest', Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sens- ing, 74(10), 1201-1211, (2008).
  18. James G. March, 'The Business Firm as a Political Coalition', The Journal of Politics, 24(4), 662-678, (November 1962).
  19. Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, In- ioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru, 'Model Cards for Model Reporting', Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency -FAT* '19, 220-229, (2019). arXiv: 1810.03993. · arXiv
  20. Brent Mittelstadt, 'AI Ethics -Too Principled to Fail?', arXiv:1906.06668 [cs], (June 2019). arXiv: 1906.06668. · arXiv
  21. Jessica Morley, Luciano Floridi, Libby Kinsey, and Anat Elha- lal, 'From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Avail- able AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Prin- ciples into Practices', Science and Engineering Ethics, (De- cember 2019).
  22. Laura Musikanski, John Havens, and Gregg Gunsch, 'IEEE P7010 Well-being Metrics Standard for Autonomous and Intel- ligent Systems', Technical report, IEEE, New York, NY, (De- cember 2018).
  23. Mirco Nanni, Gennady Andrienko, Chiara Boldrini, Francesco Bonchi, Ciro Cattuto, Francesca Chiaromonte, Giovanni Co- mand, Marco Conti, Mark Cot, Frank Dignum, Virginia Dignum, Josep Domingo-Ferrer, Fosca Giannotti, Riccardo Guidotti, Dirk Helbing, Janos Kertesz, Sune Lehmann, Bruno Lepri, Paul Lukowicz, Anna Monreale, Katharina Morik, Nuria Oliver, Andrea Passarella, Andrea Passerini, Dino Pe- dreschi, Alex Pentland, Francesca Pratesi, Salvatore Rinzivillo, Salvatore Ruggieri, Arno Siebes, Roberto Trasarti, Jeroen van den Hoven, and Alessandro Vespignani, 'Give more data, awareness and control to individual citizens, and they will help COVID-19 containment', arXiv:2004.05222 [cs], (April 2020). arXiv: 2004.05222 version: 1. · arXiv
  24. Sten Nilsson and Wolfgang Schopfhauser, 'The carbon- sequestration potential of a global afforestation program', Cli- matic Change, 30(3), 267293, (Jul 1995).
  25. Marie Caroline Oetzel and Sarah Spiekermann, 'A systematic methodology for privacy impact assessments: a design science approach', European Journal of Information Systems, 23(2), 126-150, (March 2014). Publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.18. · DOI
  26. Marion Oswald, Jamie Grace, Sheena Urwin, and Geoffrey C. Barnes, 'Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and Experimental propor- tionality', Information & Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 223-250, (May 2018). Publisher: Routledge eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2018.1458455. · DOI
  27. Claudio M. Radaelli, 'Measuring policy learning: regulatory impact assessment in europe', Journal of European Public Pol- icy, 16(8), 11451164, (Dec 2009).
  28. Abdul Manaf Mohd Rasol, An Agent-Based Framework for Forest Planning, Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Technology, De Montfort University, 2007.
  29. David Rolnick, Priya L Donti, Lynn H Kaack, Kelly Kochan- ski, Alexandre Lacoste, Kris Sankaran, Andrew Slavin Ross, Nikola Milojevic-Dupont, Natasha Jaques, Anna Waldman- Brown, et al., 'Tackling climate change with machine learning', arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05433, 33, (2019). · arXiv
  30. Jeffrey Saltz, Michael Skirpan, Casey Fiesler, Micha Gore- lick, Tom Yeh, Robert Heckman, Neil Dewar, and Nathan Beard, 'Integrating Ethics within Machine Learning Courses', ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(4), 32:1- 32:26, (August 2019).
  31. Daniel Schiff, Aladdin Ayesh, and Laura Musikansi, 'Ieee 7010: A new standard for assessing the well-being implications of artificial intelligence', in Paper under review, (2020).
  32. Daniel Schiff, Justin Biddle, Jason Borenstein, and Kelly Laas, 'What's Next for AI Ethics, Policy, and Governance? A Global Overview', in Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '20, pp. 153-158, New York, NY, USA, (February 2020). Association for Computing Machinery.
  33. Daniel L. Schmoldt, Application of Artificial Intelligence to Risk Analysis for Forested Ecosystems, 4974, Managing Forest Ecosystems, Springer Netherlands, 2001.
  34. Ren von Schomberg, 'A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation', in Responsible Innovation, 51-74, Wiley- Blackwell, (2013).
  35. Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka, Participatory Design: Principles and Practices, CRC Press, Mar 1993. Google- Books-ID: pWOEk6Sk4YkC.
  36. Andrew D. Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi, 'Fairness and Abstrac- tion in Sociotechnical Systems', SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3265913, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, (August 2018).
  37. Ville Vakkuri, Kai-Kristian Kemell, Joni Kultanen, Mikko Siponen, and Pekka Abrahamsson, 'Ethically Aligned De- sign of Autonomous Systems: Industry viewpoint and an em- pirical study', arXiv:1906.07946 [cs], (June 2019). arXiv: 1906.07946. · arXiv
  38. Wei-Wei Zhao, 'Improving Social Responsibility of Artificial Intelligence by Using ISO 26000', IOP Conference Series: Ma- terials Science and Engineering, 428, 012049, (October 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 5

Metadata

Authors
Schiff, D., Rakova, B., Ayesh, A., Fanti, A., & Lennon, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2006.04707
arXiv
2006.04707
References
10
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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