BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Bran Knowles

Bran Knowles contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
cs.CYphysics.soc-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Humble Machines: Attending to the Underappreciated Costs of Misplaced Distrust

It is curious that AI increasingly outperforms human decision makers, yet much of the public distrusts AI to make decisions affecting their lives. In this paper we explore a novel theory that may explain one reason for this. We propose that public distrust of AI is a moral consequence of designing systems that prioritize reduction of costs of false positives over less tangible costs of false negatives. We show that such systems, which we characterize as 'distrustful', are more likely to miscategorize trustworthy individuals, with cascading consequences to both those individuals and the overall human-AI trust relationship. Ultimately, we argue that public distrust of AI stems from well-founded concern about the potential of being miscategorized. We propose that restoring public trust in AI will require that systems are designed to embody a stance of 'humble trust', whereby the moral costs of the misplaced distrust associated with false negatives is weighted appropriately during development and use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Many Facets of Trust in AI: Formalizing the Relation Between Trust and Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Efforts to promote fairness, accountability, and transparency are assumed to be critical in fostering Trust in AI (TAI), but extant literature is frustratingly vague regarding this 'trust'. The lack of exposition on trust itself suggests that trust is commonly understood, uncomplicated, or even uninteresting. But is it? Our analysis of TAI publications reveals numerous orientations which differ in terms of who is doing the trusting (agent), in what (object), on the basis of what (basis), in order to what (objective), and why (impact). We develop an ontology that encapsulates these key axes of difference to a) illuminate seeming inconsistencies across the literature and b) more effectively manage a dizzying number of TAI considerations. We then reflect this ontology through a corpus of publications exploring fairness, accountability, and transparency to examine the variety of ways that TAI is considered within and between these approaches to promoting trust.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The climate impact of ICT: A review of estimates, trends and regulations

In this report, we examine the available evidence regarding ICT's current and projected climate impacts. We examine peer-reviewed studies which estimate ICT's current share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to be 1.8-2.8% of global GHG emissions. Our findings indicate that published estimates all underestimate the carbon footprint of ICT, possibly by as much as 25%, by failing to account for all of ICT's supply chains and full lifecycle (i.e. emissions scopes 1, 2 and fully inclusive 3). Adjusting for truncation of supply chain pathways, we estimate that ICT's share of emissions could actually be as high as 2.1-3.9%. There are pronounced differences between available projections of ICT's future emissions. These projections are dependent on underlying assumptions that are sometimes, but not always, made explicit - and we explore these in the report. Whatever assumptions analysts take, they agree that ICT will not reduce its emissions without a major concerted effort involving broad political and industrial action. We provide three reasons to believe ICT emissions are going to increase barring a targeted intervention, and we note that in light of these, it seems risky to assume that ICT will, by default, assist in the attainment of climate targets. Based on our analysis, we find that not all carbon pledges in the ICT sector are ambitious enough to meet climate targets. We explore the underdevelopment of mechanisms for enforcing sector-wide compliance, and contend that without a global carbon constraint, a new regulatory framework is required to keep the ICT sector's carbon footprint in alignment with the Paris Agreement. We further contend that a global carbon constraint should be viewed as a significant opportunity for the ICT sector, as efficiencies within and enabled by ICT would be even greater enablers of productivity and utility than they are today.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

The Sanction of Authority: Promoting Public Trust in AI

Trusted AI literature to date has focused on the trust needs of users who knowingly interact with discrete AIs. Conspicuously absent from the literature is a rigorous treatment of public trust in AI. We argue that public distrust of AI originates from the under-development of a regulatory ecosystem that would guarantee the trustworthiness of the AIs that pervade society. Drawing from structuration theory and literature on institutional trust, we offer a model of public trust in AI that differs starkly from models driving Trusted AI efforts. This model provides a theoretical scaffolding for Trusted AI research which underscores the need to develop nothing less than a comprehensive and visibly functioning regulatory ecosystem. We elaborate the pivotal role of externally auditable AI documentation within this model and the work to be done to ensure it is effective, and outline a number of actions that would promote public trust in AI. We discuss how existing efforts to develop AI documentation within organizations -- both to inform potential adopters of AI components and support the deliberations of risk and ethics review boards -- is necessary but insufficient assurance of the trustworthiness of AI. We argue that being accountable to the public in ways that earn their trust, through elaborating rules for AI and developing resources for enforcing these rules, is what will ultimately make AI trustworthy enough to be woven into the fabric of our society.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access