Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the cognitive and computational biases that influence human and AI decision-making
- Examines how these biases can lead to unfair and unethical outcomes, particularly in high-stakes domains like healthcare, hiring, and criminal justice
- Highlights the need for a deeper understanding of bias and the development of bias-mitigating techniques in AI systems
Plain English Explanation
The paper delves into the complex topic of bias in human and artificial intelligence (AI) decision-making. Humans are often influenced by cognitive biases, which are mental shortcuts or heuristics that can lead to errors in judgment and decision-making. For example, the availability heuristic causes us to overestimate the likelihood of events that are more easily recalled or imagined.
Similarly, AI systems can exhibit computational biases, where the algorithms, data, or design choices made during their development result in unfair or inaccurate outcomes. These biases can have serious consequences, especially in high-stakes domains like healthcare, hiring, and criminal justice, where decisions can significantly impact people's lives.
The paper emphasizes the importance of recognizing and mitigating these biases to ensure fair and ethical decision-making, both for humans and AI systems. By understanding the psychological and technical factors that contribute to biases, researchers and practitioners can develop more robust and unbiased decision-making processes.
Technical Explanation
The paper starts by introducing the topic of cognitive and computational biases in human and AI decision-making. It highlights how these biases can lead to unfair and unethical outcomes, particularly in high-stakes domains.
The paper then delves into the various heuristics and biases that influence human decision-making, such as the availability heuristic, the confirmation bias, and the anchoring effect. It explains how these cognitive biases can lead to errors in judgment and decision-making.
Next, the paper explores the computational biases that can arise in AI systems, including biases in the training data, algorithm design, and model deployment. It discusses how these biases can be amplified and propagated through the AI decision-making process.
The paper also covers the impact of these biases in high-stakes domains, such as healthcare, hiring, and criminal justice, and the importance of addressing them to ensure fair and ethical outcomes.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the cognitive and computational biases that can impact human and AI decision-making. It highlights the need for a deeper understanding of these biases and the development of effective techniques to mitigate them.
One potential limitation of the research is that it does not provide a clear roadmap for how to address these biases in practice. While the paper identifies the problem and its significance, it could benefit from more concrete recommendations or case studies on bias-mitigation strategies.
Additionally, the paper could have explored the ethical implications of biases in decision-making more extensively, particularly the societal impact and the responsibility of developers and policymakers in ensuring fair and equitable outcomes.
Conclusion
This paper underscores the critical importance of understanding and addressing cognitive and computational biases in human and AI decision-making. By recognizing these biases and developing effective mitigation strategies, researchers and practitioners can work towards more fair, ethical, and unbiased decision-making processes, with the potential to have a positive impact on various high-stakes domains.
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
Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases
Athena Vakali, Nicoleta Tantalaki
Nowadays, we delegate many of our decisions to Artificial Intelligence (AI) that acts either in solo or as a human companion in decisions made to support several sensitive domains, like healthcare, financial services and law enforcement. AI systems, even carefully designed to be fair, are heavily criticized for delivering misjudged and discriminated outcomes against individuals and groups. Numerous work on AI algorithmic fairness is devoted on Machine Learning pipelines which address biases and quantify fairness under a pure computational view. However, the continuous unfair and unjust AI outcomes, indicate that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. Although, the synergy of humans and machines seems imperative to make AI work, the significant impact of human and societal factors on AI bias is currently overlooked. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. Inspired by the cognitive science definition and taxonomy of human heuristics, we identify how harmful human actions influence the overall AI lifecycle, and reveal human to AI biases hidden pathways. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the human heuristics to AI biases reflections and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies. We envision that this approach will contribute in revisiting AI fairness under deeper human-centric case studies, revealing hidden biases cause and effects.
Read more8/1/2024
❗
0
Fair Enough? A map of the current limitations of the requirements to have fair algorithms
Daniele Regoli, Alessandro Castelnovo, Nicole Inverardi, Gabriele Nanino, Ilaria Penco
In recent years, the increase in the usage and efficiency of Artificial Intelligence and, more in general, of Automated Decision-Making systems has brought with it an increasing and welcome awareness of the risks associated with such systems. One of such risks is that of perpetuating or even amplifying bias and unjust disparities present in the data from which many of these systems learn to adjust and optimise their decisions. This awareness has on the one hand encouraged several scientific communities to come up with more and more appropriate ways and methods to assess, quantify, and possibly mitigate such biases and disparities. On the other hand, it has prompted more and more layers of society, including policy makers, to call for fair algorithms. We believe that while many excellent and multidisciplinary research is currently being conducted, what is still fundamentally missing is the awareness that having fair algorithms is per se a nearly meaningless requirement that needs to be complemented with many additional social choices to become actionable. Namely, there is a hiatus between what the society is demanding from Automated Decision-Making systems, and what this demand actually means in real-world scenarios. In this work, we outline the key features of such a hiatus and pinpoint a set of crucial open points that we as a society must address in order to give a concrete meaning to the increasing demand of fairness in Automated Decision-Making systems.
Read more8/15/2024
🔎
0
Fair by design: A sociotechnical approach to justifying the fairness of AI-enabled systems across the lifecycle
Marten H. L. Kaas, Christopher Burr, Zoe Porter, Berk Ozturk, Philippa Ryan, Michael Katell, Nuala Polo, Kalle Westerling, Ibrahim Habli
Fairness is one of the most commonly identified ethical principles in existing AI guidelines, and the development of fair AI-enabled systems is required by new and emerging AI regulation. But most approaches to addressing the fairness of AI-enabled systems are limited in scope in two significant ways: their substantive content focuses on statistical measures of fairness, and they do not emphasize the need to identify and address fairness considerations across the whole AI lifecycle. Our contribution is to present an assurance framework and tool that can enable a practical and transparent method for widening the scope of fairness considerations across the AI lifecycle and move the discussion beyond mere statistical notions of fairness to consider a richer analysis in a practical and context-dependent manner. To illustrate this approach, we first describe and then apply the framework of Trustworthy and Ethical Assurance (TEA) to an AI-enabled clinical diagnostic support system (CDSS) whose purpose is to help clinicians predict the risk of developing hypertension in patients with Type 2 diabetes, a context in which several fairness considerations arise (e.g., discrimination against patient subgroups). This is supplemented by an open-source tool and a fairness considerations map to help facilitate reasoning about the fairness of AI-enabled systems in a participatory way. In short, by using a shared framework for identifying, documenting and justifying fairness considerations, and then using this deliberative exercise to structure an assurance case, research on AI fairness becomes reusable and generalizable for others in the ethical AI community and for sharing best practices for achieving fairness and equity in digital health and healthcare in particular.
Read more6/14/2024
0
Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased People
Mingzhe Yang, Hiromi Arai, Naomi Yamashita, Yukino Baba
Teaching unbiased decision-making is crucial for addressing biased decision-making in daily life. Although both raising awareness of personal biases and providing guidance on unbiased decision-making are essential, the latter topics remains under-researched. In this study, we developed and evaluated an AI system aimed at educating individuals on making unbiased decisions using fairness-aware machine learning. In a between-subjects experimental design, 99 participants who were prone to bias performed personal assessment tasks. They were divided into two groups: a) those who received AI guidance for fair decision-making before the task and b) those who received no such guidance but were informed of their biases. The results suggest that although several participants doubted the fairness of the AI system, fair machine guidance prompted them to reassess their views regarding fairness, reflect on their biases, and modify their decision-making criteria. Our findings provide insights into the design of AI systems for guiding fair decision-making in humans.
Read more4/9/2024