arXiv subjects

Jan Fell

Publications and source records attributed to Jan Fell.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2021

Beyond Fair Pay: Ethical Implications of NLP Crowdsourcing

The use of crowdworkers in NLP research is growing rapidly, in tandem with the exponential increase in research production in machine learning and AI. Ethical discussion regarding the use of crowdworkers within the NLP research community is typically confined in scope to issues related to labor conditions such as fair pay. We draw attention to the lack of ethical considerations related to the various tasks performed by workers, including labeling, evaluation, and production. We find that the Final Rule, the common ethical framework used by researchers, did not anticipate the use of online crowdsourcing platforms for data collection, resulting in gaps between the spirit and practice of human-subjects ethics in NLP research. We enumerate common scenarios where crowdworkers performing NLP tasks are at risk of harm. We thus recommend that researchers evaluate these risks by considering the three ethical principles set up by the Belmont Report. We also clarify some common misconceptions regarding the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application. We hope this paper will serve to reopen the discussion within our community regarding the ethical use of crowdworkers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2020

Forks Over Knives: Predictive Inconsistency in Criminal Justice Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools

Big data and algorithmic risk prediction tools promise to improve criminal justice systems by reducing human biases and inconsistencies in decision making. Yet different, equally-justifiable choices when developing, testing, and deploying these sociotechnical tools can lead to disparate predicted risk scores for the same individual. Synthesizing diverse perspectives from machine learning, statistics, sociology, criminology, law, philosophy and economics, we conceptualize this phenomenon as predictive inconsistency. We describe sources of predictive inconsistency at different stages of algorithmic risk assessment tool development and deployment and consider how future technological developments may amplify predictive inconsistency. We argue, however, that in a diverse and pluralistic society we should not expect to completely eliminate predictive inconsistency. Instead, to bolster the legal, political, and scientific legitimacy of algorithmic risk prediction tools, we propose identifying and documenting relevant and reasonable "forking paths" to enable quantifiable, reproducible multiverse and specification curve analyses of predictive inconsistency at the individual level.

cs.CY↗