歧视多还是少?人员甄选技术公平性审计的实际可行性

IF 2.9 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Helena Mihaljević, Ivana Müller, Katja Dill, Aysel Yollu-Tok, Maximilian von Grafenstein
{"title":"歧视多还是少?人员甄选技术公平性审计的实际可行性","authors":"Helena Mihaljević,&nbsp;Ivana Müller,&nbsp;Katja Dill,&nbsp;Aysel Yollu-Tok,&nbsp;Maximilian von Grafenstein","doi":"10.1007/s00146-023-01726-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of technologies in personnel selection has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, revealing their potential to amplify existing inequalities in recruitment processes. To date, however, there has been a lack of comprehensive assessments of respective discriminatory potentials and no legal or practical standards have been explicitly established for fairness auditing. The current proposal of the Artificial Intelligence Act classifies numerous applications in personnel selection and recruitment as high-risk technologies, and while it requires quality standards to protect the fundamental rights of those involved, particularly during development, it does not provide concrete guidance on how to ensure this, especially once the technologies are commercially available. We argue that comprehensive and reliable auditing of personnel selection technologies must be contextual, that is, embedded in existing processes and based on real data, as well as participative, involving various stakeholders beyond technology vendors and customers, such as advocacy organizations and researchers. We propose an architectural draft that employs a data trustee to provide independent, fiduciary management of personal and corporate data to audit the fairness of technologies used in personnel selection. Drawing on a case study conducted with two state-owned companies in Berlin, Germany, we discuss challenges and approaches related to suitable fairness metrics, operationalization of vague concepts such as migration* and applicable legal foundations that can be utilized to overcome the fairness-privacy-dilemma arising from uncertainties associated with current laws. We highlight issues that require further interdisciplinary research to enable a prototypical implementation of the auditing concept in the mid-term.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"39 5","pages":"2507 - 2523"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-023-01726-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More or less discrimination? Practical feasibility of fairness auditing of technologies for personnel selection\",\"authors\":\"Helena Mihaljević,&nbsp;Ivana Müller,&nbsp;Katja Dill,&nbsp;Aysel Yollu-Tok,&nbsp;Maximilian von Grafenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00146-023-01726-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The use of technologies in personnel selection has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, revealing their potential to amplify existing inequalities in recruitment processes. To date, however, there has been a lack of comprehensive assessments of respective discriminatory potentials and no legal or practical standards have been explicitly established for fairness auditing. The current proposal of the Artificial Intelligence Act classifies numerous applications in personnel selection and recruitment as high-risk technologies, and while it requires quality standards to protect the fundamental rights of those involved, particularly during development, it does not provide concrete guidance on how to ensure this, especially once the technologies are commercially available. We argue that comprehensive and reliable auditing of personnel selection technologies must be contextual, that is, embedded in existing processes and based on real data, as well as participative, involving various stakeholders beyond technology vendors and customers, such as advocacy organizations and researchers. We propose an architectural draft that employs a data trustee to provide independent, fiduciary management of personal and corporate data to audit the fairness of technologies used in personnel selection. Drawing on a case study conducted with two state-owned companies in Berlin, Germany, we discuss challenges and approaches related to suitable fairness metrics, operationalization of vague concepts such as migration* and applicable legal foundations that can be utilized to overcome the fairness-privacy-dilemma arising from uncertainties associated with current laws. We highlight issues that require further interdisciplinary research to enable a prototypical implementation of the auditing concept in the mid-term.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AI & Society\",\"volume\":\"39 5\",\"pages\":\"2507 - 2523\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-023-01726-w.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AI & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-023-01726-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-023-01726-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,技术在人员甄选中的使用受到越来越多的关注,这揭示出它们有可能扩大招聘过程中现有的不平等现象。然而,迄今为止,还没有对各自的歧视性潜力进行全面评估,也没有明确制定公平性审计的法律或实践标准。目前的《人工智能法》提案将人事选拔和招聘中的众多应用归类为高风险技术,虽然它要求制定质量标准以保护相关人员的基本权利,尤其是在开发过程中,但它并没有就如何确保这一点提供具体指导,尤其是在技术商业化之后。我们认为,对人员甄选技术进行全面、可靠的审核必须结合实际情况,即嵌入现有流程并以真实数据为基础;还必须具有参与性,让技术供应商和客户之外的各利益相关方(如权益组织和研究人员)参与进来。我们提出了一个架构草案,利用数据托管人对个人和企业数据进行独立、受托的管理,以审核人员甄选技术的公平性。通过对德国柏林两家国有企业的案例研究,我们讨论了与合适的公平性衡量标准、迁移*等模糊概念的可操作性以及适用的法律基础相关的挑战和方法,这些挑战和方法可用于克服因现行法律的不确定性而产生的公平性-隐私性困境。我们强调了需要进一步开展跨学科研究的问题,以便在中期实现审计概念的原型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
More or less discrimination? Practical feasibility of fairness auditing of technologies for personnel selection

The use of technologies in personnel selection has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, revealing their potential to amplify existing inequalities in recruitment processes. To date, however, there has been a lack of comprehensive assessments of respective discriminatory potentials and no legal or practical standards have been explicitly established for fairness auditing. The current proposal of the Artificial Intelligence Act classifies numerous applications in personnel selection and recruitment as high-risk technologies, and while it requires quality standards to protect the fundamental rights of those involved, particularly during development, it does not provide concrete guidance on how to ensure this, especially once the technologies are commercially available. We argue that comprehensive and reliable auditing of personnel selection technologies must be contextual, that is, embedded in existing processes and based on real data, as well as participative, involving various stakeholders beyond technology vendors and customers, such as advocacy organizations and researchers. We propose an architectural draft that employs a data trustee to provide independent, fiduciary management of personal and corporate data to audit the fairness of technologies used in personnel selection. Drawing on a case study conducted with two state-owned companies in Berlin, Germany, we discuss challenges and approaches related to suitable fairness metrics, operationalization of vague concepts such as migration* and applicable legal foundations that can be utilized to overcome the fairness-privacy-dilemma arising from uncertainties associated with current laws. We highlight issues that require further interdisciplinary research to enable a prototypical implementation of the auditing concept in the mid-term.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
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