Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Demographics and discussion influence views on algorithmic fairness

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1712.09124 v2 pith:26YCNCXE submitted 2017-12-25 cs.CY

Demographics and discussion influence views on algorithmic fairness

classification cs.CY
keywords algorithmicfairnessdemographicsdiscussionpeoplesciencestudentssurveys
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The field of algorithmic fairness has highlighted ethical questions which may not have purely technical answers. For example, different algorithmic fairness constraints are often impossible to satisfy simultaneously, and choosing between them requires value judgments about which people may disagree. Achieving consensus on algorithmic fairness will be difficult unless we understand why people disagree in the first place. Here we use a series of surveys to investigate how two factors affect disagreement: demographics and discussion. First, we study whether disagreement on algorithmic fairness questions is caused partially by differences in demographic backgrounds. This is a question of interest because computer science is demographically non-representative. If beliefs about algorithmic fairness correlate with demographics, and algorithm designers are demographically non-representative, decisions made about algorithmic fairness may not reflect the will of the population as a whole. We show, using surveys of three separate populations, that there are gender differences in beliefs about algorithmic fairness. For example, women are less likely to favor including gender as a feature in an algorithm which recommends courses to students if doing so would make female students less likely to be recommended science courses. Second, we investigate whether people's views on algorithmic fairness can be changed by discussion and show, using longitudinal surveys of students in two computer science classes, that they can.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AI, Meet Human: Learning Paradigms for Hybrid Decision Making Systems

    cs.LG 2024-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Proposes a taxonomy of Hybrid Decision Making Systems as a conceptual and technical framework for modeling human-machine interaction in machine learning literature.