没有问责制的算法责任:了解组织中的数据密集型算法和决策

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
C. Besio, Cornelia Fedtke, Michael Grothe‐Hammer, Athanasios Karafillidis, Andrea Pronzini
{"title":"没有问责制的算法责任:了解组织中的数据密集型算法和决策","authors":"C. Besio, Cornelia Fedtke, Michael Grothe‐Hammer, Athanasios Karafillidis, Andrea Pronzini","doi":"10.1002/sres.3028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social science research has been concerned for several years with the issue of shifting responsibilities in organisations due to the increased use of data‐intensive algorithms. Much of the research to date has focused on the question of who should be held accountable when ‘algorithmic decisions’ turn out to be discriminatory, erroneous or unfair. From a sociological perspective, it is striking that these debates do not make a clear distinction between responsibility and accountability. In our paper, we draw on this distinction as proposed by the German social systems theorist Niklas Luhmann. We use it to analyse the changes and continuities in organisations related to the use of data‐intensive algorithms. We argue that algorithms absorb uncertainty in organisational decision‐making and thus can indeed take responsibility but cannot be made accountable for errors. By using algorithms, responsibility is fragmented across people and technology, while assigning accountability becomes highly controversial. This creates new discrepancies between responsibility and accountability, which can be especially consequential for organisations' internal trust and innovation capacities.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Algorithmic responsibility without accountability: Understanding data‐intensive algorithms and decisions in organisations\",\"authors\":\"C. Besio, Cornelia Fedtke, Michael Grothe‐Hammer, Athanasios Karafillidis, Andrea Pronzini\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/sres.3028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social science research has been concerned for several years with the issue of shifting responsibilities in organisations due to the increased use of data‐intensive algorithms. Much of the research to date has focused on the question of who should be held accountable when ‘algorithmic decisions’ turn out to be discriminatory, erroneous or unfair. From a sociological perspective, it is striking that these debates do not make a clear distinction between responsibility and accountability. In our paper, we draw on this distinction as proposed by the German social systems theorist Niklas Luhmann. We use it to analyse the changes and continuities in organisations related to the use of data‐intensive algorithms. We argue that algorithms absorb uncertainty in organisational decision‐making and thus can indeed take responsibility but cannot be made accountable for errors. By using algorithms, responsibility is fragmented across people and technology, while assigning accountability becomes highly controversial. This creates new discrepancies between responsibility and accountability, which can be especially consequential for organisations' internal trust and innovation capacities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3028\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.3028","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几年来,社会科学研究一直在关注由于越来越多地使用数据密集型算法而导致的组织责任转移问题。迄今为止,大部分研究都集中在当 "算法决策 "被证明具有歧视性、错误或不公平时,谁应该承担责任的问题上。从社会学的角度来看,这些争论并没有明确区分责任与问责,这一点令人震惊。在本文中,我们借鉴了德国社会系统理论家尼克拉斯-卢曼(Niklas Luhmann)提出的这一区别。我们用它来分析组织中与使用数据密集型算法有关的变化和连续性。我们认为,算法吸收了组织决策中的不确定性,因此确实可以承担责任,但不能对错误负责。通过使用算法,责任在人员和技术之间被分割开来,而责任的分配变得极具争议性。这就在责任和问责之间产生了新的差异,尤其会影响组织的内部信任和创新能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Algorithmic responsibility without accountability: Understanding data‐intensive algorithms and decisions in organisations
Social science research has been concerned for several years with the issue of shifting responsibilities in organisations due to the increased use of data‐intensive algorithms. Much of the research to date has focused on the question of who should be held accountable when ‘algorithmic decisions’ turn out to be discriminatory, erroneous or unfair. From a sociological perspective, it is striking that these debates do not make a clear distinction between responsibility and accountability. In our paper, we draw on this distinction as proposed by the German social systems theorist Niklas Luhmann. We use it to analyse the changes and continuities in organisations related to the use of data‐intensive algorithms. We argue that algorithms absorb uncertainty in organisational decision‐making and thus can indeed take responsibility but cannot be made accountable for errors. By using algorithms, responsibility is fragmented across people and technology, while assigning accountability becomes highly controversial. This creates new discrepancies between responsibility and accountability, which can be especially consequential for organisations' internal trust and innovation capacities.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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