Alice Xiang

Alice Xiang will present her paper, Being “Seen” vs. “Mis-seen”: Tensions Between Privacy and Fairness in Computer Vision, on Friday, September 24th at 11:30am at #werobot 2021. Daniel Susser will lead the discussion.

The rise of AI technologies has caused growing anxiety that AI may create mass surveillance systems and entrench societal biases. Major facial recognition systems are less accurate for women and individuals with darker skin tones due to a lack of diversity in the training datasets. Efforts to diversify datasets can raise privacy issues; plaintiffs can argue that they had not consented to having their images used in facial recognition training datasets.

This highlights the tension that AI technologies create between representation vs. surveillance: we want AI to “see” and “recognize” us, but we are uncomfortable with the idea of AI having access to personal data about us. This tension is further amplified when the need for sensitive attribute data to detect or mitigate bias is considered. Existing privacy law addresses this area primarily by erring on the side of hiding people’s sensitive attributes unless there is explicit informed consent. While some have argued that not being “seen” by AI is preferable—that being under-represented in training data might allow one to evade mass surveillance—incomplete datasets may result in detrimental false-positive identification. Thus, not being “seen” by AI does not protect against being “mis-seen.”

Daniel Susser (discussant)

The first contribution of this article is to characterize this tension between privacy and fairness in the context of algorithmic bias mitigation. In particular, this article argues that the irreducible paradox underlying current efforts to design less biased algorithms is the simultaneous desire to be both “seen” yet “unseen” by AI. Second, the Article reviews the viability of strategies that have been proposed for addressing the tension between privacy and fairness and evaluates whether they adequately address associated technical, operational, legal, and ethical challenges. Finally, this article argues that solving the tension between representation and surveillance requires considering the importance of not being “mis-seen” by AI rather than simply being “unseen.” Untethering these concepts (being seen, unseen, vs. mis-seen) can bring greater clarity around what rights relevant laws and policies should seek to protect. Given that privacy and fairness are both critical objectives for ethical AI, it is vital to address this tension head-on. Approaches that rely purely on visibility or invisibility will likely fail to achieve either objective.

Elizabeth Kumar

Elizabeth Kumar, Andrew Selbst, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian will present their paper, The Legal Construction of Black Boxes, on Saturday, September 25th at 10:00am at #werobot 2021. Ryan Calo will lead the discussion.

Abstraction is a fundamental technique in computer science. Formal abstraction treats a system as defined entirely by its inputs, outputs, and the relationship that transforms inputs to outputs. If a system’s user knows those details, they need not know anything else about how the system works; the internal elements can be hidden from them in a “black box.” Abstraction also entails abstraction choices: What are the relevant inputs and outputs? What properties should the transformation between them have? What constitutes the “abstraction boundary?” These choices are necessary, but they have implications for legal proceedings that involve the use of machine learning (ML).

Andrew Selbst

This paper makes two arguments about abstraction in ML and legal proceedings. The first is that abstraction choices that can be treated as normative and epistemic claims made by developers that compete with judgments properly belonging to courts. Abstraction constitutes a claim as to the division of responsibility: what is inside the black box is the province of the developer; what is outside belongs to the user. Abstraction also is a factual definition, rendering the system an intelligible and interrogable object. Yet the abstraction that defines the boundary of a system is itself a design choice. When courts treat technology as a black box with a fixed outer boundary, they unwittingly abdicate their responsibility to make normative judgments as to the division of responsibility for certain wrongs, and abdicate part of their factfinding roles by taking the abstraction boundaries as a given. We demonstrate these effects in discussions of foreseeability in tort law, liability in discrimination law, and evidentiary burdens more broadly.

Suresh Venkatasubramanian

Our second argument builds from that observation. By interpreting the abstraction as one of many possible design choices, rather than a simple fact, courts can surface those choices as evidence to draw new lines of responsibility without necessarily interrogating the interior of the black box itself. Courts may draw on evidence about the system as presented to support these alternative lines of responsibility, but by analyzing the construction of the implied abstraction boundary of a system, they can also consider the context around its development and deployment.

Ryan Calo

Courts can rely on experts to compare a designer’s choices with emerging standard practices in the field of ML or assign a burden to a user to justify their use of off-the-shelf technology. After resurfacing the normative and epistemic contentions embedded in the technology, courts can use familiar lines of reasoning to assign liability as proper.

Join us in person virtually for the 10th Anniversary Edition – Register Here
All times are US Eastern time.

NOTE: Check the Program page for up-to-date information.

Demos

Societal Implications of Large Language Models
Miles Brundage

Skills from Students – Artifacts from a Robot Interaction Design Curriculum for Fifth Grade Students
Daniella DiPaola

We also plan some surprises!

Note: For the latest updates keep an eye on the We Robot 2021 Program page

Everyone says it’s harder to get things done under COVID, so we’re extending the deadline for submission of paper abstracts to We Robot 2021 by one week – to midnight US East Coast time on February 8, 2021.

We will attempt to keep to the rest of the schedule, but paper acceptance notices may end up slightly delayed also.