BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for researchDiscover
Workspaces
Network
Opportunities
Account
Researcher profile
Mona Sloane contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.
Trust snapshot
Actions
Identity and collaboration
Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.
Log in to claimDirect collaboration
Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
In this paper, we suggest a systematic approach for developing socio-technical assessment for hiring ADS. We suggest using a matrix to expose underlying assumptions rooted in pseudoscientific essentialized understandings of human nature and capability, and to critically investigate emerging auditing standards and practices that fail to address these assumptions.
Automated hiring systems are among the fastest-developing of all high-stakes AI systems. Among these are algorithmic personality tests that use insights from psychometric testing, and promise to surface personality traits indicative of future success based on job seekers' resumes or social media profiles. We interrogate the validity of such systems using stability of the outputs they produce, noting that reliability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for validity. Our approach is to (a) develop a methodology for an external audit of stability of predictions made by algorithmic personality tests, and (b) instantiate this methodology in an audit of two systems, Humantic AI and Crystal. Crucially, rather than challenging or affirming the assumptions made in psychometric testing -- that personality is a meaningful and measurable construct, and that personality traits are indicative of future success on the job -- we frame our methodology around testing the underlying assumptions made by the vendors of the algorithmic personality tests themselves. Our main contribution is the development of a socio-technical framework for auditing the stability of algorithmic systems. This contribution is supplemented with an open-source software library that implements the technical components of the audit, and can be used to conduct similar stability audits of algorithmic systems. We instantiate our framework with the audit of two real-world personality prediction systems, namely Humantic AI and Crystal. The application of our audit framework demonstrates that both these systems show substantial instability with respect to key facets of measurement, and hence cannot be considered valid testing instruments.
Within the current AI ethics discourse, there is a gap in empirical research on understanding how AI practitioners understand ethics and socially organize to operationalize ethical concerns, particularly in the context of AI start-ups. This gap intensifies the risk of a disconnect between scholarly research, innovation, and application. This risk materializes acutely as mounting pressures to identify and mitigate the potential harms of AI systems have created an urgent need to assess and implement socio-technical innovation for fairness, accountability, and transparency. Building on social practice theory, we address this need via a framework that allows AI researchers, practitioners, and regulators to systematically analyze existing cultural understandings, histories, and social practices of ethical AI to define appropriate strategies for effectively implementing socio-technical innovations. Our contributions are threefold: 1) we introduce a practice-based approach for understanding ethical AI; 2) we present empirical findings from our study on the operationalization of ethics in German AI start-ups to underline that AI ethics and social practices must be understood in their specific cultural and historical contexts; and 3) based on our empirical findings, we suggest that ethical AI practices can be broken down into principles, needs, narratives, materializations, and cultural genealogies to form a useful backdrop for considering socio-technical innovations.
This paper critically examines existing modes of participation in design practice and machine learning. Cautioning against 'participation-washing', it suggests that the ML community must become attuned to possibly exploitative and extractive forms of community involvement and shift away from the prerogatives of context-independent scalability.