Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI
0
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the issue of epistemic injustice in the context of generative AI systems.
- Epistemic injustice refers to the unfair treatment of individuals or groups in their capacity as knowers.
- The authors explore how generative AI models can perpetuate or exacerbate epistemic injustice.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses how generative AI models can lead to epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice is when people are unfairly treated or viewed as less credible in their role as knowers or information providers.
The authors explain that generative AI models trained on data that reflects societal biases can amplify and perpetuate these biases. This can result in certain individuals or groups being systematically undervalued or dismissed as credible sources of knowledge. For example, a language model that consistently generates less nuanced or authoritative-sounding responses from women or minority voices could reinforce harmful stereotypes about their competence or expertise.
The paper also examines how the increasing use of generative AI in domains like information access and academic publishing could exacerbate existing epistemic injustices by privileging certain voices over others. This could have significant implications for the equitable distribution of knowledge and access to information in society.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by defining epistemic injustice as the unfair treatment of individuals or groups in their capacity as knowers or information providers. The authors then explore how this issue can manifest in the context of generative AI systems.
The researchers highlight how biases present in the data used to train generative AI models can be amplified and propagated through the generated outputs. This can lead to certain voices or perspectives being systematically undervalued or dismissed as less credible, even if the model was not explicitly designed to do so.
The paper also examines how the increasing adoption of generative AI in domains like information access and academic publishing could exacerbate existing epistemic injustices. For example, if generative models are used to summarize research papers or generate text for academic journals, they may inadvertently privilege certain types of knowledge or expertise over others.
The authors also discuss the potential for generative AI to be used as a tool for detecting and mitigating epistemic injustice, such as through the automated identification of biases in language models.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the potential for generative AI systems to perpetuate or exacerbate epistemic injustice. The authors provide a thoughtful analysis of how biases in training data and the increasing adoption of these technologies in knowledge-intensive domains could have significant implications for the equitable distribution of information and the recognition of diverse sources of expertise.
However, the paper also acknowledges that further research is needed to fully understand the complex dynamics at play and to develop effective strategies for mitigating these issues. Specifically, the authors note the need for more empirical studies to quantify the scale and impact of epistemic injustice in generative AI, as well as the exploration of technical and policy-based interventions that can help address these challenges.
Additionally, the paper could have benefited from a more in-depth discussion of the societal and ethical implications of epistemic injustice in the context of generative AI. This could include consideration of how these issues intersect with broader questions of algorithmic bias, fairness, and the responsible development and deployment of these technologies.
Conclusion
This paper makes a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on the social and ethical implications of generative AI systems. By highlighting the issue of epistemic injustice, the authors draw attention to a crucial yet often overlooked dimension of the impact these technologies can have on individuals, communities, and the distribution of knowledge in society.
The insights from this paper underscore the importance of proactively addressing bias and equity concerns in the design, development, and deployment of generative AI models. As these technologies become more prevalent, it will be crucial for researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to work collaboratively to ensure that the benefits of these powerful tools are distributed equitably and do not inadvertently reinforce or exacerbate existing social and epistemic hierarchies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
0
Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI
Jackie Kay, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Shakir Mohamed
This paper investigates how generative AI can potentially undermine the integrity of collective knowledge and the processes we rely on to acquire, assess, and trust information, posing a significant threat to our knowledge ecosystem and democratic discourse. Grounded in social and political philosophy, we introduce the concept of emph{generative algorithmic epistemic injustice}. We identify four key dimensions of this phenomenon: amplified and manipulative testimonial injustice, along with hermeneutical ignorance and access injustice. We illustrate each dimension with real-world examples that reveal how generative AI can produce or amplify misinformation, perpetuate representational harm, and create epistemic inequities, particularly in multilingual contexts. By highlighting these injustices, we aim to inform the development of epistemically just generative AI systems, proposing strategies for resistance, system design principles, and two approaches that leverage generative AI to foster a more equitable information ecosystem, thereby safeguarding democratic values and the integrity of knowledge production.
Read more8/22/2024
0
Whose Knowledge is Valued?: Epistemic Injustice in CSCW Applications
Leah Hope Ajmani, Jasmine C Foriest, Jordan Taylor, Kyle Pittman, Sarah Gilbert, Michael Ann Devito
Social computing scholars have long known that people do not interact with knowledge in straightforward ways, especially in digital environments. While policies around knowledge are essential for targeting misinformation, they are value-laden; in choosing how to present information, we undermine non-traditional -- often non-Western -- ways of knowing. Epistemic injustice is the systemic exclusion of certain people and methods from the knowledge canon. Epistemic injustice chips away at one's testimony and vocabulary until they are stripped of their due right to know and understand. In this paper, we articulate how epistemic injustice in sociotechnical applications leads to material harm. Inspired by a hybrid collaborative autoethnography of 14 CSCW practitioners, we present three cases of epistemic injustice in sociotechnical applications: online transgender healthcare, identity sensemaking on r/bisexual, and Indigenous ways of knowing on r/AskHistorians. We further explore signature tensions across our autoethnographic materials and relate them to previous CSCW research areas and personal non-technological experiences. We argue that epistemic injustice can serve as a unifying and intersectional lens for CSCW research by surfacing dimensions of epistemic community and power. Finally, we present a call to action of three changes the CSCW community should make to move toward its own goals of research justice. We call for CSCW researchers to center individual experiences, bolster communities, and remediate issues of epistemic power as a means towards epistemic justice. In sum, we recount, synthesize, and propose solutions for the various forms of epistemic injustice that CSCW sites of study -- including CSCW itself -- propagate.
Read more7/8/2024
0
Epistemological Bias As a Means for the Automated Detection of Injustices in Text
Kenya Andrews, Lamogha Chiazor
Injustice occurs when someone experiences unfair treatment or their rights are violated and is often due to the presence of implicit biases and prejudice such as stereotypes. The automated identification of injustice in text has received little attention, due in part to the fact that underlying implicit biases or stereotypes are rarely explicitly stated and that instances often occur unconsciously due to the pervasive nature of prejudice in society. Here, we describe a novel framework that combines the use of a fine-tuned BERT-based bias detection model, two stereotype detection models, and a lexicon-based approach to show that epistemological biases (i.e., words, which presupposes, entails, asserts, hedges, or boosts text to erode or assert a person's capacity as a knower) can assist with the automatic detection of injustice in text. The news media has many instances of injustice (i.e. discriminatory narratives), thus it is our use case here. We conduct and discuss an empirical qualitative research study which shows how the framework can be applied to detect injustices, even at higher volumes of data.
Read more7/9/2024
🐍
0
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
Valerio Capraro, Austin Lentsch, Daron Acemoglu, Selin Akgun, Aisel Akhmedova, Ennio Bilancini, Jean-Franc{c}ois Bonnefon, Pablo Bra~nas-Garza, Luigi Butera, Karen M. Douglas, Jim A. C. Everett, Gerd Gigerenzer, Christine Greenhow, Daniel A. Hashimoto, Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Jolanda Jetten, Simon Johnson, Chiara Longoni, Pete Lunn, Simone Natale, Iyad Rahwan, Neil Selwyn, Vivek Singh, Siddharth Suri, Jennifer Sutcliffe, Joe Tomlinson, Sander van der Linden, Paul A. M. Van Lange, Friederike Wall, Jay J. Van Bavel, Riccardo Viale
Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the potential impacts of generative AI on (mis)information and three information-intensive domains: work, education, and healthcare. Our goal is to highlight how generative AI could worsen existing inequalities while illuminating how AI may help mitigate pervasive social problems. In the information domain, generative AI can democratize content creation and access, but may dramatically expand the production and proliferation of misinformation. In the workplace, it can boost productivity and create new jobs, but the benefits will likely be distributed unevenly. In education, it offers personalized learning, but may widen the digital divide. In healthcare, it might improve diagnostics and accessibility, but could deepen pre-existing inequalities. In each section we cover a specific topic, evaluate existing research, identify critical gaps, and recommend research directions, including explicit trade-offs that complicate the derivation of a priori hypotheses. We conclude with a section highlighting the role of policymaking to maximize generative AI's potential to reduce inequalities while mitigating its harmful effects. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing policy frameworks in the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, observing that each fails to fully confront the socioeconomic challenges we have identified. We propose several concrete policies that could promote shared prosperity through the advancement of generative AI. This article emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to understand and address the complex challenges of generative AI.
Read more5/7/2024