Epistemic Power, Objectivity and Gender in AI Ethics Labor: Legitimizing Located Complaints

Overview

• The paper explores the various epistemic bases from which AI ethics is discussed and practiced, based on interviews with 75 technologists.
• It examines how some AI ethics practices have gained legitimacy through authority from automation and quantification, while those based on embodied and situated lived experiences have been marginalized.
• The paper draws on the work of feminist anthropology, STS, and postcolonial/Black feminist theories to analyze the implications of dominant AI ethics practices.
• It proposes "humble technical practices" that seek to make their epistemic limits clear and flatten hierarchies of epistemic power.

Plain English Explanation

The paper looks at what counts as legitimate work in the field of AI ethics. It's based on interviews with 75 people working in technology, including researchers, developers, and activists.

The paper shows how some AI ethics practices have gained credibility by using data and automation. These practices, like "Model Cards," have become more accepted. But other approaches that rely on people's real-life experiences have been pushed aside.

The paper uses ideas from feminist anthropology, science and technology studies, and postcolonial/Black feminist theory to understand the implications of the dominant AI ethics practices. These dominant practices risk making quantified, technical work the only legitimate way to do AI ethics, while dismissing the knowledge that comes from people's lived experiences.

To address this, the paper proposes "humble technical practices" - quantified or technical approaches that are upfront about their limitations. This could help create a more equal playing field for different ways of understanding AI ethics.

Technical Explanation

The paper examines the epistemic foundations of AI ethics based on 75 interviews with technologists, including researchers, developers, open source contributors, and activists. It explores how some AI ethics practices have gained legitimacy through the authority of automation and quantification, while those rooted in embodied and situated lived experiences have been marginalized.

The authors draw on the work of feminist anthropologist Diana Forsythe and STS scholar Lucy Suchman, as well as postcolonial feminist theorist Sara Ahmed and Black feminist theorist Kristie Dotson, to examine the implications of dominant AI ethics practices.

They argue that by entrenching the epistemic power of quantification, these practices - such as Model Cards - risk legitimizing AI ethics in a way that delegitimizes and marginalizes embodied and lived experiences as part of the same project. In response, the authors propose "humble technical practices" - quantified or technical approaches that seek to make their epistemic limits clear in order to flatten hierarchies of epistemic power.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important concerns about the dominant forms of AI ethics and how they may be reinforcing certain power structures and ways of knowing. The authors make a compelling case that the emphasis on quantification and automation in many AI ethics practices risks marginalizing the knowledge and perspectives that come from people's lived experiences.

However, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific tradeoffs and challenges of trying to incorporate more embodied, situated forms of knowledge into technical AI ethics work. It would be helpful to see more discussion of the practical obstacles and potential solutions for bridging these different epistemic approaches.

Additionally, the paper could benefit from a more nuanced exploration of the variety of AI ethics practices and how they may differ in their epistemic foundations and impacts. Not all quantified or technical approaches to AI ethics may be equally problematic, and there may be ways to combine multiple forms of knowledge in productive ways.

Overall, the paper offers a valuable critical perspective on the power dynamics at play in the field of AI ethics. It encourages readers to think more deeply about the epistemic and political implications of how AI ethics is defined and practiced.

Conclusion

This paper provides an important critique of the dominant practices in the field of AI ethics. By examining the various epistemic bases that underpin different approaches to AI ethics, the authors reveal how some practices have gained legitimacy through the authority of automation and quantification, while others rooted in embodied and situated lived experiences have been marginalized.

The authors' proposal of "humble technical practices" offers a potential way forward, one that seeks to make the epistemic limits of quantified or technical approaches clear, in order to create a more level playing field for diverse ways of understanding and addressing the ethical challenges of AI systems.

This paper has significant implications for the AI ethics community, challenging it to critically examine its own power structures and epistemological biases. It also resonates with broader discussions around the role of power and positionality in AI development and governance. Ultimately, this research encourages a more inclusive and reflexive approach to the vital work of shaping the ethical future of artificial intelligence.