Rediet Abebe
Jon Kleinberg
ABSTRACT
A recent normative turn in computer science has brought concerns about fairness, bias, and accountability to the core of the field. Yet recent scholarship has warned that much of this technical work treats problematic features of the status quo as fixed, and fails to address deeper patterns of injustice and inequality. While acknowledging these critiques, we posit that computational research has valuable roles to play in addressing social problems --- roles whose value can be recognized even from a perspective that aspires toward fundamental social change. In this paper, we articulate four such roles, through an analysis that considers the opportunities as well as the significant risks inherent in such work. Computing research can serve as a diagnostic, helping us to understand and measure social problems with precision and clarity. As a formalizer, computing shapes how social problems are explicitly defined --- changing how those problems, and possible responses to them, are understood. Computing serves as rebuttal when it illuminates the boundaries of what is possible through technical means. And computing acts as synecdoche when it makes long-standing social problems newly salient in the public eye. We offer these paths forward as modalities that leverage the particular strengths of computational work in the service of social change, without overclaiming computing's capacity to solve social problems on its own.
- 2019. ML for the Developing World.Google Scholar
- Rediet Abebe and Kira Goldner. 2018. Mechanism design for social good. AI Matters 4, 3 (2018), 27--34.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rediet Abebe, Shawndra Hill, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Peter M Small, and H Andrew Schwartz. 2019. Using search queries to understand health information needs in Africa. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 13. 3--14.Google Scholar
- Rediet Abebe, Jon Kleinberg, and S. Matthew Weinberg. 2020. Subsidy Allocations in the Presence of Income Shocks. In 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
- Harold Abelson, Ross Anderson, Steven M Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Matthew Green, Susan Landau, Peter G Neumann, et al. 2015. Keys under doormats: mandating insecurity by requiring government access to all data and communications. Journal of Cybersecurity 1, 1 (2015), 69--79.Google Scholar
- Hal Abelson and et. al. 2016. Letter to the Honorable Elaine C. Duke. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/Technology%20Experts%20Letter%20to%20DHS%20Opposing%20the%20Extreme%20Vetting%20Initiative%20-%2011.15.17.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Philip E Agre. 1997. Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI. Social science, technical systems, and cooperative work: Beyond the Great Divide (1997), 131.Google Scholar
- Muhammad Ali, Piotr Sapiezynski, Miranda Bogen, Aleksandra Korolova, Alan Mislove, and Aaron Rieke. 2019. Discrimination through Optimization: How Facebook's Ad Delivery Can Lead to Biased Outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 199.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jack M Balkin. 2004. Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. NYU Law Review 79 (2004), 1.Google Scholar
- Chelsea Barabas, Karthik Dinakar, Joichi Ito, Madars Virza, and Jonathan Zittrain. 2018. Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, Vol. 81. 62--76.Google Scholar
- Solon Barocas. 2014. Putting Data to Work. In Data and Discrimination: Collected Essays, Seeta Peña Gangadharan, Virginia Eubanks, and Solon Barocas (Eds.). Open Technology Institute.Google Scholar
- Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Fairness and Machine Learning. fairmlbook.org. http://www.fairmlbook.org.Google Scholar
- Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev. 104 (2016), 671.Google Scholar
- Ruha Benjamin. 2019. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Cynthia L Bennett and Os Keyes. 2019. What is the Point of Fairness? Disability, AI and The Complexity of Justice. In ASSETS 2019 Workshop --- AI Fairness for People with Disabilities.Google Scholar
- Sebastian Benthall. 2018. Computational institutions. https://digifesto.com/2018/12/22/computational-institutions/Google Scholar
- Sebastian Benthall. 2018. The politics of AI ethics is a seductive diversion from fixing our broken capitalist system. https://digifesto.com/2018/12/18/the-politics-of-ai-ethics-is-a-seductive-diversion-from-fixing-our-broken-capitalist-system/Google Scholar
- Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. 2016. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 4349--4357.Google Scholar
- Sarah Brayne. 2017. Big data surveillance: The case of policing. American Sociological Review 82, 5 (2017), 977--1008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meredith Broussard, Nicholas Diakopoulos, Andrea L. Guzman, Rediet Abebe, Michel Dupagne, and Ching-Hua Chuan. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and Journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96, 3 (2019), 673--695. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 77--91.Google Scholar
- Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science 356, 6334 (2017), 183--186.Google Scholar
- Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning 2 (1979), 67--90. Issue 1.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Angela Chen. 2019. Inmates in Finland are training AI as part of prison labor. The Verge (2019). https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/28/18285572/prison-labor-finland-artificial-intelligence-data-tagging-vainuGoogle Scholar
- Le Chen, Ruijun Ma, Anikó Hannák, and Christo Wilson. 2018. Investigating the impact of gender on rank in resume search engines. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 651.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153--163.Google Scholar
- Angèle Christin. 2018. Counting clicks: Quantification and variation in web journalism in the United States and France. Amer. J. Sociology 123, 5 (2018), 1382--1415.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Danielle Keats Citron. 2018. Technological Due Process. Washington University Law Review (2018).Google Scholar
- David A Clarke. 1988. Digital data processing arbitration system. US Patent 4,789,926.Google Scholar
- Concerned Researchers. 2019. On Recent Research Auditing Commercial Facial Analysis Technology. Medium.com (2019). https://medium.com/@bu64dcjrytwitb8/on-recent-research-auditing-commercial-facial-analysis-technology-19148bda1832Google Scholar
- Sasha Costanza-Chock. 2018. Design justice, AI, and escape from the matrix of domination. Journal of Design and Science (2018).Google Scholar
- Kate Crawford. [n. d.]. You and AI - the politics of AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPopJb5aDyA. Accessed: 2019-08-01.Google Scholar
- Kate Crawford and Ryan Calo. 2016. There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature News 538, 7625 (2016), 311.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amit Datta, Michael Carl Tschantz, and Anupam Datta. 2015. Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proceedings on privacy enhancing technologies 2015, 1 (2015), 92--112.Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Delacrétaz, Scott Duke Kominers, and Alexander Teytelboym. 2016. Refugee resettlement. University of Oxford Department of Economics Working Paper (2016).Google Scholar
- Lina Dencik, Fieke Jansen, and Philippa Metcalfe. 2018. A conceptual framework for approaching social justice in an age of datafication. DATAJUSTICE project 30 (2018).Google Scholar
- Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2019. Data feminism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Natasha Duarte, Emma Llanso, and Anna Loup. 2018. Mixed Messages? The Limits of Automated Social Media Content Analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.), Vol. 81. PMLR, New York, NY, USA, 106--106.Google Scholar
- Laurel Eckhouse, Kristian Lum, Cynthia Conti-Cook, and Julie Ciccolini. 2018. Layers of Bias: A Unified Approach for Understanding Problems With Risk Assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 46, 2 (2018), 185--2019.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Ekstrand and Karen Levy. [n. d.]. FAT* Network. https://fatconference.org/network/. Accessed: 2019-08-01.Google Scholar
- Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
- Batya Friedman and David G Hendry. 2019. Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. Mit Press.Google Scholar
- Batya Friedman and Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 14, 3 (1996), 330--347.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Seeta Peña Gangadharan and Jędrzej Niklas. 2019. Decentering technology in discourse on discrimination. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 882--899.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Timnit Gebru. 2019. Oxford Handbook on AI Ethics Book Chapter on Race and Gender. arXiv:cs.CY/1908.06165Google Scholar
- Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumeé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09010 (2018).Google Scholar
- Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Tarleton Gillespie and Nick Seaver. [n. d.]. Critical Algorithm Studies: a Reading List. https://socialmediacollective.org/reading-lists/critical-algorithm-studies/. Accessed: 2019-08-01.Google Scholar
- Ben Green. 2018. "Fair" Risk Assessments: A Precarious Approach for Criminal Justice Reform. In 5th Workshop on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning.Google Scholar
- Daniel Greene, Anna Lauren Hoffmann, and Luke Stark. 2019. Better, nicer, clearer, fairer: A critical assessment of the movement for ethical artificial intelligence and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kevin D Haggerty. 2009. Methodology as a knife fight: The process, politics and paradox of evaluating surveillance. Critical Criminology 17, 4 (2009), 277.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Drew Harwell and Nick Miroff. 2018. ICE just abandoned its dream of 'extreme vetting' software that could predict whether a foreign visitor would become a terrorist. Washington Post (2018). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/05/17/ice-just-abandoned-its-dream-of-extreme-vetting-software-that-could-predict-whether-a-foreign-visitor-would-become-a-terrorist/Google Scholar
- Nabil Hassein. 2017. Against black inclusion in facial recognition. https://digitaltalkingdrum.com/2017/08/15/against-black-inclusion-in-facial-recognition/Google Scholar
- Deborah Hellman. 2019. Measuring Algorithmic Fairness. Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper 2019-39 (2019).Google Scholar
- Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 900--915.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anna Lauren Hoffmann. 2019. Where fairness fails: data, algorithms, and the limits of antidiscrimination discourse. Information, Communication & Society 22, 7 (2019), 900--915.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Keith Hoskin. 1996. The 'awful idea of accountability': inscribing people into the measurement of objects. Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing 265 (1996).Google Scholar
- Lucas D Introna and Helen Nissenbaum. 2000. Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The information society 16, 3 (2000), 169--185.Google Scholar
- Sheila Jasanoff. 2006. Technology as a site and object of politics. In The Oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Raj Jayadev. 2019. The Future of Pretrial Justice is Not Bail or System Supervision --- It Is Freedom and Community. Silcon Valley Debug (2019). https://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/stories/the-future-of-pretrial-justice-is-not-money-bail-or-system-supervision-it-s-freedom-and-communityGoogle Scholar
- Will Jones and Alexander Teytelboym. 2018. Matching Systems for Refugees. Journal on Migration and Human Security 5 (2018), 667--681. Issue 3.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Louis Kaplow. 1992. Rules versus standards: An economic analysis. Duke Lj 42 (1992), 557.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2016. A guide to solving social problems with machine learning. Harvard Business Review (2016).Google Scholar
- Jon M. Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2017. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. In 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2017, January 9--11, 2017, Berkeley, CA, USA. 43:1--43:23.Google Scholar
- John Logan Koepke and David G Robinson. 2018. Danger ahead: Risk assessment and the future of bail reform. Wash. L. Rev. 93 (2018), 1725.Google Scholar
- Scott Duke Kominers. 2018. Good Markets (Really Do) Make Good Neighbors. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 16, 2 (2018), 12--26.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 2018. The Use of Pretrial "Risk Assessment" Instruments: A Shared Statement of Civil Rights Concerns. http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/criminal-justice/Pretrial-Risk-Assessment-Full.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Lawrence Lessig. 2009. Code: And other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emma Lurie and Eni Mustafaraj. 2019. Opening Up the Black Box: Auditing Google's Top Stories Algorithm. In Proceedings of the International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, Vol. 32.Google Scholar
- Robert Manduca. 2019. Mechanism Design for Social Good. RobertManduca.com (2019). http://robertmanduca.com/portfolio/mechanism-design-4-social-good/Google Scholar
- Sandra G. Mayson. 2019. Bias In, Bias Out. Yale Law Journal 128 (2019), 2218. Issue 8.Google Scholar
- Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 220--229.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Evgeny Morozov. 2013. To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs.Google Scholar
- Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.Google Scholar
- Rebekah Overdorf, Bogdan Kulynych, Ero Balsa, Carmela Troncoso, and Seda Gürses. 2018. Questioning the assumptions behind fairness solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.11293 (2018).Google Scholar
- Scott E. Page. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frank Pasquale. 2015. The black box society. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Frank Pasquale. 2018. Odd Numbers. Real Life Mag (2018).Google Scholar
- Samir Passi and Solon Barocas. 2019. Problem formulation and fairness. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 39--48.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Komal S Patel. 2018. Testing the Limits of the First Amendment: How Online Civil Rights Testing Is Protected Speech Activity. Columbia Law Review 118, 5 (2018), 1473--1516.Google Scholar
- Julia Powles. 2018. The seductive diversion of 'solving' bias in artificial intelligence.Google Scholar
- Ruchir Puri. 2018. Mitigating Bias in AI Models. IBM Research Blog (2018).Google Scholar
- Manish Raghavan, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, and Karen Levy. 2020. Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM.Google Scholar
- Inioluwa Deborah Raji and Joy Buolamwini. 2019. Actionable Auditing: Investigating the Impact of Publicly Naming Biased Performance Results of Commercial AI Products. AAAI/ACM Conf. on AI Ethics and Society (2019).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joel R Reidenberg. 1997. Lex informatica: The formulation of information policy rules through technology. Tex. L. Rev. 76 (1997), 553.Google Scholar
- John Roach. 2018. Microsoft improves facial recognition technology to perform well across all skin tones, genders. The AI Blog (2018).Google Scholar
- Sarah T Roberts. 2019. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry 22 (2014).Google Scholar
- Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, 59--68.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeff Spross. 2019. How robots became a scapegoat for the destruction of the working class. The Week (2019). https://theweek.com/articles/837759/how-robots-became-scapegoat-destruction-working-classGoogle Scholar
- Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. ACM Queue (2013).Google Scholar
- Michael S Wald and Maria Woolverton. 1990. Risk assessment: The emperor's new clothes? Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program (1990).Google Scholar
- Meredith Whittaker, Kate Crawford, Roel Dobbe, Genevieve Fried, Elizabeth Kaziunas, Varoon Mathur, Sarah Mysers West, Rashida Richardson, Jason Schultz, and Oscar Schwartz. 2018. AI now report 2018. AI Now Institute at New York University.Google Scholar
- Langdon Winner. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus (1980), 121--136.Google Scholar
- Alice Xiang and Inioluwa Deborah Raji. 2019. On the Legal Compatibility of Fairness Definitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00761 (2019).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Roles for computing in social change
Recommendations
Social Justice-Oriented Interaction Design: Outlining Key Design Strategies and Commitments
DIS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive SystemsIn recent years, many HCI designers have begun pursuing research agendas that address large scale social issues. These systemic or "wicked" problems present challenges for design practice due to their scope, scale, complexity, and political nature. In ...
Human-Computer Insurrection: Notes on an Anarchist HCI
CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThe HCI community has worked to expand and improve our consideration of the societal implications of our work and our corresponding responsibilities. Despite this increased engagement, HCI continues to lack an explicitly articulated politic, which we ...
The futures of computing and wisdom
NordiCHI '18: Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer InteractionThere has been an increasing interest in discussing the consequences of the technologies we invent and study in HCI. Whether it is climate change, ethical computing, capitalist and neo-liberal models of commerce and society, grassroots movements, big ...
Comments