arXiv subjects

Andrew Smart

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Smart.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment

Can AI systems be aligned to human values? The popularization of large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal foundation models has seen a rise in harms spanning from toxic speech and hallucinations to AI agents executing unauthorized actions. Within the field of AI safety, these harmful instances are often framed as the alignment problem, or of models being misaligned with human values. Researchers have responded by pursuing applied and theoretical AI value alignment efforts, often without specifying what they mean by human values. How does the field of AI value alignment conceive of human values? How are these conceptions of values technically operationalized and evaluated? What does the emergent theory of value from this field signify for the future of AI? We annotated 94 value alignment research papers to discern their implicit theory of values in AI. The majority do not define values, relying heavily on preferences as a stand in that runs the risk of reducing complex culturally situated concepts down to binary choices. As researchers dispense with using human annotators for model training and evaluation, turning instead to synthetic data and autorater approaches to aligning and evaluating models, we identify the potential to close off alternative methods for contesting and enacting values in foundation models. In making AI value alignments philosophical commitments explicit, we seek to bring great specificity and under explored perspectives in the debate on whether and how AI can address human values.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Unsafe at any AUC: Unlearned Lessons from Sociotechnical Disasters for Responsible AI

As automated decision-making and data-driven technologies pervade society and are used to manage consequential outcomes, understanding the technology's capabilities, limitations, and attendant risks in context requires analysis of full sociotechnical systems. Sociotechnical analysis of risks in highly complex systems provides clear lessons for the design and evaluation of AI systems, transcending a technical focus on reliable or "responsibly designed" components to understand risks at a systems level. Human-made catastrophes have been studied for decades because of the severity of these events: consider Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima-Daiichi, Bhopal, the Challenger disaster. A common misconception is that these kinds of events are freak accidents, resulting from the inherently unforeseeable interactions in complex systems. Closer examination reveals that the risks and hazards were well-known beforehand but not acted upon due to social structural, political and economic factors. We outline several areas where the development and use of AI can benefit from learning these unlearned lessons: improved risk perception, communication, and analysis at the organizational level; traceability of requirements and responsibilities; and holistic approaches to responsibility and safety that include social and organizational dynamics as first-order engineering concerns. For each area, we offer concrete unlearned lessons and exemplify how they led to failure in prior accidents as well as examples of how these lessons remain unlearned for modern computing systems, particularly AI.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Cultural Perspectives and Expectations for Generative AI: A Global Survey Approach

There is a lack of empirical evidence about global attitudes around whether and how GenAI should represent cultures. This paper assesses understandings and beliefs about culture as it relates to GenAI from a large-scale global survey. We gathered data about what culture means to different groups, and about how GenAI should approach the representation of cultural artifacts, concepts, or values. We distill working definitions of culture directly from these communities to build an understanding of its conceptual complexities and how they relate to representations in Generative AI. We survey from across parts of Europe, North and South America, Asia, and Africa. We conclude with a set of recommendations for Culture and GenAI development. These include participatory approaches, prioritizing specific cultural dimensions beyond geography, such as religion and tradition, and a sensitivity framework for addressing cultural ``redlines''.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Self-Explaining Hate Speech Detection with Moral Rationales

Existing hate speech detection models are often opaque and rely on surface-level lexical cues, which makes them vulnerable to spurious correlations and limits robustness, interpretability and cultural contextualization. We propose Supervised Moral Rationale Attention (SMRA), the first self-explaining hate speech detection framework to incorporate moral rationales as direct supervision for attention alignment. Based on Moral Foundations Theory, SMRA aligns token-level attention with expert-annotated moral rationales, guiding models to attend to morally salient spans. Unlike prior rationale-supervised or post-hoc approaches, SMRA integrates moral rationale supervision directly into the training objective, producing inherently interpretable and contextualized explanations. To support our framework, we also introduce HateBRMoralXplain, a Brazilian Portuguese benchmark dataset annotated with hate labels, moral categories, token-level moral rationales, and socio-political metadata. Across binary hate speech detection and multi-label moral sentiment classification, SMRA consistently improves performance while enhancing both faithful and plausible explanations. Although explanations become more concise, sufficiency decreases, indicating more compact and informative rationales. Fairness remains stable, suggesting that improvements in explanation quality do not introduce significant bias trade-offs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

How Tech Workers Contend with Hazards of Humanlikeness in Generative AI

Generative AI's humanlike qualities are driving its rapid adoption in professional domains. However, this anthropomorphic appeal raises concerns from HCI and responsible AI scholars about potential hazards and harms, such as overtrust in system outputs. To investigate how technology workers navigate these humanlike qualities and anticipate emergent harms, we conducted focus groups with 30 professionals across six job functions (ML engineering, product policy, UX research and design, product management, technology writing, and communications). Our findings reveal an unsettled knowledge environment surrounding humanlike generative AI, where workers' varying perspectives illuminate a range of potential risks for individuals, knowledge work fields, and society. We argue that workers require comprehensive support, including clearer conceptions of ``humanlikeness'' to effectively mitigate these risks. To aid in mitigation strategies, we provide a conceptual map articulating the identified hazards and their connection to conflated notions of ``humanlikeness.''

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Stop treating `AGI' as the north-star goal of AI research

The AI research community plays a vital role in shaping the scientific, engineering, and societal goals of AI research. In this position paper, we argue that focusing on the highly contested topic of `artificial general intelligence' (`AGI') undermines our ability to choose effective goals. We identify six key traps -- obstacles to productive goal setting -- that are aggravated by AGI discourse: Illusion of Consensus, Supercharging Bad Science, Presuming Value-Neutrality, Goal Lottery, Generality Debt, and Normalized Exclusion. To avoid these traps, we argue that the AI research community needs to (1) prioritize specificity in engineering and societal goals, (2) center pluralism about multiple worthwhile approaches to multiple valuable goals, and (3) foster innovation through greater inclusion of disciplines and communities. Therefore, the AI research community needs to stop treating `AGI' as the north-star goal of AI research.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Socially Responsible Data for Large Multilingual Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly increased in size and apparent capabilities in the last three years, but their training data is largely English text. There is growing interest in multilingual LLMs, and various efforts are striving for models to accommodate languages of communities outside of the Global North, which include many languages that have been historically underrepresented in digital realms. These languages have been coined as "low resource languages" or "long-tail languages", and LLMs performance on these languages is generally poor. While expanding the use of LLMs to more languages may bring many potential benefits, such as assisting cross-community communication and language preservation, great care must be taken to ensure that data collection on these languages is not extractive and that it does not reproduce exploitative practices of the past. Collecting data from languages spoken by previously colonized people, indigenous people, and non-Western languages raises many complex sociopolitical and ethical questions, e.g., around consent, cultural safety, and data sovereignty. Furthermore, linguistic complexity and cultural nuances are often lost in LLMs. This position paper builds on recent scholarship, and our own work, and outlines several relevant social, cultural, and ethical considerations and potential ways to mitigate them through qualitative research, community partnerships, and participatory design approaches. We provide twelve recommendations for consideration when collecting language data on underrepresented language communities outside of the Global North.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Beyond Model Interpretability: Socio-Structural Explanations in Machine Learning

What is it to interpret the outputs of an opaque machine learning model. One approach is to develop interpretable machine learning techniques. These techniques aim to show how machine learning models function by providing either model centric local or global explanations, which can be based on mechanistic interpretations revealing the inner working mechanisms of models or nonmechanistic approximations showing input feature output data relationships. In this paper, we draw on social philosophy to argue that interpreting machine learning outputs in certain normatively salient domains could require appealing to a third type of explanation that we call sociostructural explanation. The relevance of this explanation type is motivated by the fact that machine learning models are not isolated entities but are embedded within and shaped by social structures. Sociostructural explanations aim to illustrate how social structures contribute to and partially explain the outputs of machine learning models. We demonstrate the importance of sociostructural explanations by examining a racially biased healthcare allocation algorithm. Our proposal highlights the need for transparency beyond model interpretability, understanding the outputs of machine learning systems could require a broader analysis that extends beyond the understanding of the machine learning model itself.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Discipline and Label: A WEIRD Genealogy and Social Theory of Data Annotation

Data annotation remains the sine qua non of machine learning and AI. Recent empirical work on data annotation has begun to highlight the importance of rater diversity for fairness, model performance, and new lines of research have begun to examine the working conditions for data annotation workers, the impacts and role of annotator subjectivity on labels, and the potential psychological harms from aspects of annotation work. This paper outlines a critical genealogy of data annotation; starting with its psychological and perceptual aspects. We draw on similarities with critiques of the rise of computerized lab-based psychological experiments in the 1970's which question whether these experiments permit the generalization of results beyond the laboratory settings within which these results are typically obtained. Do data annotations permit the generalization of results beyond the settings, or locations, in which they were obtained? Psychology is overly reliant on participants from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies (WEIRD). Many of the people who work as data annotation platform workers, however, are not from WEIRD countries; most data annotation workers are based in Global South countries. Social categorizations and classifications from WEIRD countries are imposed on non-WEIRD annotators through instructions and tasks, and through them, on data, which is then used to train or evaluate AI models in WEIRD countries. We synthesize evidence from several recent lines of research and argue that data annotation is a form of automated social categorization that risks entrenching outdated and static social categories that are in reality dynamic and changing. We propose a framework for understanding the interplay of the global social conditions of data annotation with the subjective phenomenological experience of data annotation work.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Unsocial Intelligence: an Investigation of the Assumptions of AGI Discourse

Dreams of machines rivaling human intelligence have shaped the field of AI since its inception. Yet, the very meaning of human-level AI or artificial general intelligence (AGI) remains elusive and contested. Definitions of AGI embrace a diverse range of incompatible values and assumptions. Contending with the fractured worldviews of AGI discourse is vital for critiques that pursue different values and futures. To that end, we provide a taxonomy of AGI definitions, laying the ground for examining the key social, political, and ethical assumptions they make. We highlight instances in which these definitions frame AGI or human-level AI as a technical topic and expose the value-laden choices being implicitly made. Drawing on feminist, STS, and social science scholarship on the political and social character of intelligence in both humans and machines, we propose contextual, democratic, and participatory paths to imagining future forms of machine intelligence. The development of future forms of AI must involve explicit attention to the values it encodes, the people it includes or excludes, and a commitment to epistemic justice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Assessing LLMs for Moral Value Pluralism

The fields of AI current lacks methods to quantitatively assess and potentially alter the moral values inherent in the output of large language models (LLMs). However, decades of social science research has developed and refined widely-accepted moral value surveys, such as the World Values Survey (WVS), eliciting value judgments from direct questions in various geographies. We have turned those questions into value statements and use NLP to compute to how well popular LLMs are aligned with moral values for various demographics and cultures. While the WVS is accepted as an explicit assessment of values, we lack methods for assessing implicit moral and cultural values in media, e.g., encountered in social media, political rhetoric, narratives, and generated by AI systems such as LLMs that are increasingly present in our daily lives. As we consume online content and utilize LLM outputs, we might ask, which moral values are being implicitly promoted or undercut, or -- in the case of LLMs -- if they are intending to represent a cultural identity, are they doing so consistently? In this paper we utilize a Recognizing Value Resonance (RVR) NLP model to identify WVS values that resonate and conflict with a given passage of output text. We apply RVR to the text generated by LLMs to characterize implicit moral values, allowing us to quantify the moral/cultural distance between LLMs and various demographics that have been surveyed using the WVS. In line with other work we find that LLMs exhibit several Western-centric value biases; they overestimate how conservative people in non-Western countries are, they are less accurate in representing gender for non-Western countries, and portray older populations as having more traditional values. Our results highlight value misalignment and age groups, and a need for social science informed technological solutions addressing value plurality in LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Beyond the ML Model: Applying Safety Engineering Frameworks to Text-to-Image Development

Identifying potential social and ethical risks in emerging machine learning (ML) models and their applications remains challenging. In this work, we applied two well-established safety engineering frameworks (FMEA, STPA) to a case study involving text-to-image models at three stages of the ML product development pipeline: data processing, integration of a T2I model with other models, and use. Results of our analysis demonstrate the safety frameworks - both of which are not designed explicitly examine social and ethical risks - can uncover failure and hazards that pose social and ethical risks. We discovered a broad range of failures and hazards (i.e., functional, social, and ethical) by analyzing interactions (i.e., between different ML models in the product, between the ML product and user, and between development teams) and processes (i.e., preparation of training data or workflows for using an ML service/product). Our findings underscore the value and importance of examining beyond an ML model in examining social and ethical risks, especially when we have minimal information about an ML model.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Walking the Walk of AI Ethics: Organizational Challenges and the Individualization of Risk among Ethics Entrepreneurs

Amidst decline in public trust in technology, computing ethics have taken center stage, and critics have raised questions about corporate ethics washing. Yet few studies examine the actual implementation of AI ethics values in technology companies. Based on a qualitative analysis of technology workers tasked with integrating AI ethics into product development, we find that workers experience an environment where policies, practices, and outcomes are decoupled. We analyze AI ethics workers as ethics entrepreneurs who work to institutionalize new ethics-related practices within organizations. We show that ethics entrepreneurs face three major barriers to their work. First, they struggle to have ethics prioritized in an environment centered around software product launches. Second, ethics are difficult to quantify in a context where company goals are incentivized by metrics. Third, the frequent reorganization of teams makes it difficult to access knowledge and maintain relationships central to their work. Consequently, individuals take on great personal risk when raising ethics issues, especially when they come from marginalized backgrounds. These findings shed light on complex dynamics of institutional change at technology companies.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

The Equitable AI Research Roundtable (EARR): Towards Community-Based Decision Making in Responsible AI Development

This paper reports on our initial evaluation of The Equitable AI Research Roundtable -- a coalition of experts in law, education, community engagement, social justice, and technology. EARR was created in collaboration among a large tech firm, nonprofits, NGO research institutions, and universities to provide critical research based perspectives and feedback on technology's emergent ethical and social harms. Through semi-structured workshops and discussions within the large tech firm, EARR has provided critical perspectives and feedback on how to conceptualize equity and vulnerability as they relate to AI technology. We outline three principles in practice of how EARR has operated thus far that are especially relevant to the concerns of the FAccT community: how EARR expands the scope of expertise in AI development, how it fosters opportunities for epistemic curiosity and responsibility, and that it creates a space for mutual learning. This paper serves as both an analysis and translation of lessons learned through this engagement approach, and the possibilities for future research.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2022

Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction

Understanding the landscape of potential harms from algorithmic systems enables practitioners to better anticipate consequences of the systems they build. It also supports the prospect of incorporating controls to help minimize harms that emerge from the interplay of technologies and social and cultural dynamics. A growing body of scholarship has identified a wide range of harms across different algorithmic technologies. However, computing research and practitioners lack a high level and synthesized overview of harms from algorithmic systems. Based on a scoping review of computing research $(n=172)$, we present an applied taxonomy of sociotechnical harms to support a more systematic surfacing of potential harms in algorithmic systems. The final taxonomy builds on and refers to existing taxonomies, classifications, and terminologies. Five major themes related to sociotechnical harms - representational, allocative, quality-of-service, interpersonal harms, and social system/societal harms - and sub-themes are presented along with a description of these categories. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and opportunities for future research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible ML

Inappropriate design and deployment of machine learning (ML) systems leads to negative downstream social and ethical impact -- described here as social and ethical risks -- for users, society and the environment. Despite the growing need to regulate ML systems, current processes for assessing and mitigating risks are disjointed and inconsistent. We interviewed 30 industry practitioners on their current social and ethical risk management practices, and collected their first reactions on adapting safety engineering frameworks into their practice -- namely, System Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Our findings suggest STPA/FMEA can provide appropriate structure toward social and ethical risk assessment and mitigation processes. However, we also find nontrivial challenges in integrating such frameworks in the fast-paced culture of the ML industry. We call on the ML research community to strengthen existing frameworks and assess their efficacy, ensuring that ML systems are safer for all people.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Healthsheet: Development of a Transparency Artifact for Health Datasets

Machine learning (ML) approaches have demonstrated promising results in a wide range of healthcare applications. Data plays a crucial role in developing ML-based healthcare systems that directly affect people's lives. Many of the ethical issues surrounding the use of ML in healthcare stem from structural inequalities underlying the way we collect, use, and handle data. Developing guidelines to improve documentation practices regarding the creation, use, and maintenance of ML healthcare datasets is therefore of critical importance. In this work, we introduce Healthsheet, a contextualized adaptation of the original datasheet questionnaire ~\cite{gebru2018datasheets} for health-specific applications. Through a series of semi-structured interviews, we adapt the datasheets for healthcare data documentation. As part of the Healthsheet development process and to understand the obstacles researchers face in creating datasheets, we worked with three publicly-available healthcare datasets as our case studies, each with different types of structured data: Electronic health Records (EHR), clinical trial study data, and smartphone-based performance outcome measures. Our findings from the interviewee study and case studies show 1) that datasheets should be contextualized for healthcare, 2) that despite incentives to adopt accountability practices such as datasheets, there is a lack of consistency in the broader use of these practices 3) how the ML for health community views datasheets and particularly \textit{Healthsheets} as diagnostic tool to surface the limitations and strength of datasets and 4) the relative importance of different fields in the datasheet to healthcare concerns.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2021

The Use and Misuse of Counterfactuals in Ethical Machine Learning

The use of counterfactuals for considerations of algorithmic fairness and explainability is gaining prominence within the machine learning community and industry. This paper argues for more caution with the use of counterfactuals when the facts to be considered are social categories such as race or gender. We review a broad body of papers from philosophy and social sciences on social ontology and the semantics of counterfactuals, and we conclude that the counterfactual approach in machine learning fairness and social explainability can require an incoherent theory of what social categories are. Our findings suggest that most often the social categories may not admit counterfactual manipulation, and hence may not appropriately satisfy the demands for evaluating the truth or falsity of counterfactuals. This is important because the widespread use of counterfactuals in machine learning can lead to misleading results when applied in high-stakes domains. Accordingly, we argue that even though counterfactuals play an essential part in some causal inferences, their use for questions of algorithmic fairness and social explanations can create more problems than they resolve. Our positive result is a set of tenets about using counterfactuals for fairness and explanations in machine learning.

cs.CY↗