Two computer scientists and a cultural scientist get hit by a driver-less car: a method for situating knowledge in the cross-disciplinary study of F-A-T in machine learning: translation tutorial

M. I. Ganesh, F. Dechesne, Zeerak Talat
{"title":"Two computer scientists and a cultural scientist get hit by a driver-less car: a method for situating knowledge in the cross-disciplinary study of F-A-T in machine learning: translation tutorial","authors":"M. I. Ganesh, F. Dechesne, Zeerak Talat","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3375663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a workshop organized in December 2017 in Leiden, the Netherlands, a group of lawyers, computer scientists, artists, activists and social and cultural scientists collectively read a computer science paper about 'improving fairness'. This session was perceived by many participants as eye-opening on how different epistemologies shape approaches to the problem, method and solutions, thus enabling further cross-disciplinary discussions during the rest of the workshop. For many participants it was both refreshing and challenging, in equal measure, to understand how another discipline approached the problem of fairness. Now, as a follow-up we propose a translation tutorial that will engage participants at the FAT* conference in a similar exercise. We will invite participants to work in small groups reading excerpts of academic papers from different disciplinary perspectives on the same theme. We argue that most of us do not read outside our disciplines and thus are not familiar with how the same issues might be framed and addressed by our peers. Thus the purpose will be to have participants reflect on the different genealogies of knowledge in research, and how they erect walls, or generate opportunities for more productive inter-disciplinary work. We argue that addressing, through technical measures or otherwise, matters of ethics, bias and discrimination in AI/ML technologies in society is complicated by the different constructions of knowledge about what ethics (or bias or discrimination) means to different groups of practitioners. In the current academic structure, there are scarce resources to test, build on-or even discard-methods to talk across disciplinary lines. This tutorial is thus proposed to see if this particular method might work.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a workshop organized in December 2017 in Leiden, the Netherlands, a group of lawyers, computer scientists, artists, activists and social and cultural scientists collectively read a computer science paper about 'improving fairness'. This session was perceived by many participants as eye-opening on how different epistemologies shape approaches to the problem, method and solutions, thus enabling further cross-disciplinary discussions during the rest of the workshop. For many participants it was both refreshing and challenging, in equal measure, to understand how another discipline approached the problem of fairness. Now, as a follow-up we propose a translation tutorial that will engage participants at the FAT* conference in a similar exercise. We will invite participants to work in small groups reading excerpts of academic papers from different disciplinary perspectives on the same theme. We argue that most of us do not read outside our disciplines and thus are not familiar with how the same issues might be framed and addressed by our peers. Thus the purpose will be to have participants reflect on the different genealogies of knowledge in research, and how they erect walls, or generate opportunities for more productive inter-disciplinary work. We argue that addressing, through technical measures or otherwise, matters of ethics, bias and discrimination in AI/ML technologies in society is complicated by the different constructions of knowledge about what ethics (or bias or discrimination) means to different groups of practitioners. In the current academic structure, there are scarce resources to test, build on-or even discard-methods to talk across disciplinary lines. This tutorial is thus proposed to see if this particular method might work.
两名计算机科学家和一名文化科学家被无人驾驶汽车撞:机器学习中F-A-T跨学科研究中的知识定位方法:翻译教程
2017年12月,在荷兰莱顿举办的一个研讨会上,一群律师、计算机科学家、艺术家、活动家和社会文化科学家共同阅读了一篇关于“提高公平”的计算机科学论文。这次会议被许多与会者认为是大开眼界,了解不同的认识论如何塑造问题,方法和解决方案的方法,从而在研讨会的其余部分进行进一步的跨学科讨论。对于许多参与者来说,理解另一门学科如何处理公平问题既令人耳目一新,又具有挑战性。现在,作为后续行动,我们提出了一个翻译教程,让FAT*会议的与会者参与类似的练习。我们将邀请参与者以小组形式阅读同一主题的不同学科观点的学术论文摘录。我们认为,我们大多数人不阅读学科以外的书籍,因此不熟悉我们的同行如何构建和解决同样的问题。因此,目的将是让参与者反思研究中知识的不同谱系,以及他们如何建立壁垒,或为更富有成效的跨学科工作创造机会。我们认为,通过技术措施或其他方式解决社会中人工智能/机器学习技术中的道德、偏见和歧视问题,由于对不同从业者群体的道德(或偏见或歧视)意味着什么知识的不同构建而变得复杂。在目前的学术结构中,很少有资源来测试、建立甚至抛弃跨学科的方法。因此,本教程建议看看这种特殊方法是否可行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信