Artificial intelligence is being integrated into more and more aspects of our lives. From personal assistants like Alexa and Siri, to programs that help determine who gets a loan or what videos you see on social media, AI is influencing major decisions both big and small.
However, as these technologies become more sophisticated, concerns have grown about how AI may actually exacerbate unfair biases and discriminatory outcomes if developers are not conscious about addressing these issues during design and implementation. Algorithms are only as unbiased as the data and assumptions that go into building them. And much of the data that exists in the world today reflects the historical injustices and inequalities of our society.
If AI systems are not developed with inclusion, fairness and accountability in mind, there is a real risk that they will simply automate and even amplify the unfair biases of the human world. This could negatively impact marginalized groups and potentially violate civil rights laws. It’s therefore critical that algorithmic fairness and anti-discrimination principles are top of mind for any company or organization working with AI.
Where Biases Can Creep In
There are several key points in the AI development process where unintended biases could potentially influence outcomes in harmful ways:
- Data Collection: If the data used to train models is incomplete or collected in a non-representative manner, it may under-represent or misrepresent certain groups. For example, facial recognition technology has been shown to work less well on darker skin tones due to underrepresentation in training data.
- Feature Selection: The choices researchers make about which variables or attributes to include in their predictive models could inadvertently exclude or undervalue important factors for marginalized communities.
- Model Parameters: The architectural choices, variables, and weights determined during machine learning training will inevitably reflect some biases based on the value judgments of the humans who designed the system. Fairness must be a constraint in the optimization process.
- Output and Accuracy Metrics: The ways success is measured – such as prioritizing overall accuracy above all else – could ignore disparate impact on subgroups and reinforce the status quo. A system that is equally unfair to all groups may show high accuracy.
- Post-Processing and Oversight: Even if a model is unbiased, if its high-stakes outputs like credit approval are not regularly audited for unfair outcomes against protected classes, inequities could evolve over time as society changes.
Addressing these issues requires a multi-pronged approach including careful data auditing, algorithmic choices that make fairness a priority rather than an afterthought, transparency about potential harms, and oversight to identify problems that still emerge. While challenging, it is a technical and ethical obligation for the AI field.
Techniques for Fairer Algorithms
Fortunately, researchers have developed promising methods for making algorithmic decisions more equitable and inclusive through techniques like:
- Fairness Through Awareness: Training models to be explicitly aware of sensitive attributes like gender or race so outputs cannot be unfairly influenced by these factors.
- Preprocessing Data: Strategies like reweighting samples can help counter imbalances in training data and make algorithms more representational of diverse populations.
- Postprocessing Outputs: Adjusting results – such as lowering scores that unfairly discriminate – to correct for biases detected in initial model outputs before they are operationalized.
- Causal Modeling: Using techniques from causal inference like intervention calculations can help determine if an algorithm would make the same decision for two similar people of different demographic groups.
- Multi-Objective Optimization: Algorithms can aim to maximize both overall accuracy and fairness metrics to achieve equitable outcomes, rather than just focusing on top-line performance numbers.
- Impact Simulations: Tools that simulate how algorithms will affect different demographic groups allow for quantitative “stress testing” to identify potential unfair disparities before full deployment.
While no silver bullet, applying these techniques rigorously and in tandem holds promise for developing AI systems in a way that is more conscientious of unintended harm. However, the responsibilities of companies are ongoing – fairness must continue to be evaluated even after deployment through feedback mechanisms and oversight.
With diligence, awareness of potential pitfalls, and open evaluation, the promise of AI can be realized in a manner that expands access and equity for all. But it will require vigilance and partnership between engineers, ethicists, and the communities involved. The risks of inaction are too significant to ignore. With care and conscience, the path forward can uphold both innovation and justice.