Examining Responsibility and Deliberation in AI Impact Statements and Ethics Reviews
Name
3514094.3534155.pdf
Size
1.33 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
5678de9da5e9de80090af91bc8aa2c29
Author(s)
Liu, David
Nanayakkara, Priyanka
Sakha, Sarah
Abuhamad, Grace
Blodgett, Su Lin
Diakopoulos, Nicholas
Hullman, Jessica
Eliassi-Rad, Tina
Date Issued
July 27, 2022
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
Citation
David Liu, Priyanka Nanayakkara, Sarah Ariyan Sakha, Grace Abuhamad, Su Lin Blodgett, Nicholas Diakopoulos, Jessica R. Hullman, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2022. Examining Responsibility and Deliberation in AI Impact Statements and Ethics Reviews. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 424–435.
Version
Final published version
Abstract
The artificial intelligence research community is continuing to grapple with the ethics of its work by encouraging researchers to discuss potential positive and negative consequences. Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), a top-tier conference for machine learning and artificial intelligence research, first required a statement of broader impact in 2020. In 2021, NeurIPS updated their call for papers such that 1) the impact statement focused on negative societal impacts and was not required but encouraged, 2) a paper checklist and ethics guidelines were provided to authors, and 3) papers underwent ethics reviews and could be rejected on ethical grounds. In light of these changes, we contribute a qualitative analysis of 231 impact statements and all publicly-available ethics reviews. We describe themes arising around the ways in which authors express agency (or lack thereof) in identifying or mitigating negative consequences and assign responsibility for mitigating negative societal impacts. We also characterize ethics reviews in terms of the types of issues raised by ethics reviewers (falling into categories of policy-oriented and non-policy-oriented), recommendations ethics reviewers make to authors (e.g., in terms of adding or removing content), and interaction between authors, ethics reviewers, and original reviewers (e.g., consistency between issues flagged by original reviewers and those discussed by ethics reviewers). Finally, based on our analysis we make recommendations for how authors can be further supported in engaging with the ethical implications of their work.
Description
AIES’22, August 1–3, 2022, Oxford, United Kingdom
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534155
