A participatory data-centric approach to AI Ethics by Design

References

• Aizenberg, E., and J. van den Hoven. 2020. Designing for human rights in AI. Big Data & Society 7 (2):2053951720949566. doi:10.1177/2053951720949566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ananny, M. 2016. Toward an ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Science Technology and Human Values 41 (1):93–778. doi:10.1177/0162243915606523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aragon, C., C. Hutto, A. Echenique, B. Fiore-Gartland, Y. Huang, J. Kim, G. Neff, W. Xing, and J. Bayer. 2016. Developing a research agenda for human-centered data science. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion, 529–35. doi:10.1145/2818052.2855518.
   Google Scholar
• Bender, E. M., and B. Friedman. 2018. Data statements for natural language processing: Toward mitigating system bias and enabling better science. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 6:587–604. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00041.
   Google Scholar
• Bødker, S., and M. Kyng. 2018. ACM transactions on computer-human interaction. Participatory Design that Matters; Facing the Big Issues 25 (1):4:1–4:31. doi:10.1145/3152421.
   Google Scholar
• Bozdag, E., and J. van den Hoven. 2015. Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology 17 (4):249–65. doi:10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brey, P., and B. Dainow. 2021. Ethics by design and ethics of use in AI and robotics. The SIENNA project - Stakeholder-informed ethics for new technologies with high socio-economic and human rights impact. Accessed April 26, 2021. https://www.sienna-project.eu/digitalAssets/915/c_915554-l_1-k_sienna-ethics-by-design-and-ethics-of-use.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Consequence Scanning – an agile practice for responsible innovators | doteveryone. n.d. Accessed March 21, 2021. https://www.doteveryone.org.uk/project/consequence-scanning/.
   Google Scholar
• Derboven, J., D. De Roeck, M. Verstraete, D. Geerts, J. Schneider-Barnes, and K. Luyten. 2010. Comparing user interaction with low and high fidelity prototypes of tabletop surfaces. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, 148–57. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868935.
   Google Scholar
• Ehn, P., and D. Sjögren. 1991. From system description to scripts for action. In Design at work - Cooperative design of computer systems, ed. J. Greenbaum, and M. Kyng, 241–69. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Elish, M. C., and D. Boyd. 2018. Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI. Communication Monographs 85 (1):57–80. doi:10.1080/03637751.2017.1375130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eubanks, E. 2018 Automating Inequality - How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor (New York: Picador)
   Google Scholar
• Floridi, L., J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossi, et al. 2018 December. AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines 1–24. doi:10.12932/AP0443.32.4.2014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floridi, L., J. Cowls, T. C. King, and M. Taddeo. 2020. How to design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3):1771–96. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., D. G. Hendry, and A. Borning. 2017. A survey of value sensitive design methods. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 11 (2):63–125. doi:10.1561/1100000015.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., and P. H. Kahn. 2003. Human values, ethics, and design. In The human-computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, Jacko, J., and Sears, A., 1177–1201. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Gebru, T., J. Morgenstern, B. Vecchione, J. W. Vaughan, H. Wallach, H. Daumé III, and K. Crawford. 2020. Datasheets for datasets. ArXiv:1803.09010 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09010.
   Google Scholar
• Gerdes, A. 2021. Dialogical guidelines aided by knowledge acquisition: enhancing the design of explainable interfaces and algorithmic accuracy. In Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2020, Volume 1 Virtual event, eds. K. Arai, S. Kapoor, and R. Bhatia, 243–57. Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gerdes, A. 2008. The clash between standardisation and engagement. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 6 (1):46–59. doi:10.1108/14779960810866792.
   Google Scholar
• Gerdes, A. 2018. An inclusive ethical design perspective for a flourishing future with artificial intelligent systems. European Journal of Risk Regulation 9 (4):677–89. doi:10.1017/err.2018.62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P. 2016. Predictive risk modelling to prevent child maltreatment and other adverse outcomes for service users: Inside the ‘black box’ of machine learning. The British Journal of Social Work 46 (4):1044–58. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenbaum, J., and M. Kyng. 1991. Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems. New Jersey: LEA.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, P., I. van de Poel, and M. Steen. 2020. Algorithms and values in justice and security. AI & SOCIETY 35 (3):533–55. doi:10.1007/s00146-019-00932-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holstein, K., J. Wortman Vaughan, H. Daumé, M. Dudik, and H. Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300830.
   Google Scholar
• Kelleher, J. D., and B. Tierney. 2018. Data science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M., T. Zimmermann, R. DeLine, and A. Begel. 2018. Data scientists in software teams: State of the art and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 44 (11):1024–38. doi:10.1109/TSE.2017.2754374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazer, D., R. Kennedy, G. King, and A. Vespignani. 2014. The parable of Google Flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science 343 (6176):1203–05. doi:10.1126/science.1248506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, M., S. Wu, A. Zaldivar, P. Barnes, L. Vasserman, B. Hutchinson, E. Spitzer, I. D. Raji, and T. Gebru. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–29. doi:10.1145/3287560.3287596.
   Google Scholar
• Mittelstadt, B. D., P. Allo, M. Taddeo, S. Wachter, and L. Floridi. 2016. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society 3 (2):205395171667967–205395171667967. doi:10.1177/2053951716679679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, R., J. F. Elder, and G. Miner. 2009. Handbook of statistical analysis and data mining applications. Amsterdam, Boston: Academic Press/Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum, H. 2001. How computer systems embody values. Computer 34 (3):120–119. doi:10.1109/2.910905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neil, C. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Paleyes, A., R.-G. Urma, and N. D. Lawrence. 2021. Challenges in deploying machine learning: A survey of case studies. ArXiv:2011.09926 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09926.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, A. C. M., L. R. Christensen, and T. T. Hildebrandt. 2020. The role of discretion in the age of automation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 29 (3):303–33. doi:10.1007/s10606-020-09371-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, S., D. Dewey, and M. Tegmark. 2015. Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. Ai Magazine 36 (4):105–14. doi:10.1609/aimag.v36i4.2577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagar, R. 2021. Big data to good data: Andrew Ng urges ML community to be more data-centric and less model-centric. Analytics India Magazine. Accessed May 17, 2021. https://analyticsindiamag.com/big-data-to-good-data-andrew-ng-urges-ml-community-to-be-more-data-centric-and-less-model-centric/.
   Google Scholar
• Sculley, D., G. Holt, D. Golovin, E. Davydov, T. Phillips, D. Ebner, V. Chaudhary, M. Young, J.-F. Crespo, and D. Dennison. 2015. Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems. In Advances in neural information processing systems, ed. C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, vol. 28, 2503–11. Curran Associates, Inc. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/5656-hidden-technical-debt-in-machine-learning-systems.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Seidelin, C., Y. Dittrich, and E. Grönvall. 2020. Foregrounding data in co-design–An exploration of how data may become an object of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 143:102505. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, G. 2018. The AI delusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tubella, A. A., A. Theodorou, V. Dignum, and F. Dignum. 2019. Governance by glass-box: Implementing transparent moral bounds for AI behaviour. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1905.04994.
   Google Scholar
• Tubella, A., and V. Dignum. 2019. The glass box approach: Verifying contextual adherence to values. AISafety 2019. Macao, China, August 11–12. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-160949.
   Google Scholar
• Umbrello, S., and I. van de Poel. 2021. Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics 1:283–96. doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van den Hoven, J. 2007. ICT and value sensitive design. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 233:67–72.
   Google Scholar
• Veale, M., and R. Binns. 2017. Fairer machine learning in the real world: Mitigating discrimination without collecting sensitive data. Big Data & Society 4 (2):2053951717743530. doi:10.1177/2053951717743530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, H., B. Yu, A. Halfaker, and L. Terveen. 2018. Value-sensitive algorithm design: Method, case study, and lessons. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2 (CSCW):1–23. doi:10.1145/3274463.
   Google Scholar