What are the ethical risks of AI?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are sweeping the globe, accelerating change, and ushering in myriad opportunities. These formidable forces, however, come with significant challenges that warrant our attention.

‍

The main issue is making sure AI is used fairly and in line with our values. Deciding what is right or wrong when it comes to AI can be complicated. We need to consider things like being fair, protecting the environment, and making sure people's rights are respected.

‍

Take, for instance, an AI system primed to make decisions based on unrepresentative data. Such a system could easily generate biased results, subjecting certain demographics to unfair treatment. AI systems' vast energy consumption raises environmental concerns, while their capacity for extensive data collection and analysis poses risks to privacy.

‍

As AI grows in popularity, it could potentially increase existing disparities, hurting those already disadvantaged. It's crucial we use AI responsibly, respecting everyone's rights and values, and ensuring its proper development and use. (source: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence | UNESCO)

‍

Who faces the highest Risk in AI?

Plunging into the unexplored depths of Artificial Intelligence (AI), it's imperative to pinpoint those potentially in the line of fire from these technological leaps. Primarily, individuals who rely significantly on AI systems stand at the forefront. With AI's ability to create convincing stories, it becomes difficult to distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy information. This creates serious problems for people who rely on AI to make important decisions or provide guidance.

‍

Additionally, AI-driven tremors in the job market are on the horizon. Roles characterized by routine and repetition—like paralegal work, secretarial duties, and translation—face a tangible threat from AI. The ensuing consequences could radically restructure our workforce in the not-so-distant future.

‍

Issues that affect all of society also need careful consideration. Potential long-term repercussions hint at a possible relinquishment of control over AI, precipitating unpredictable complications as AI integrates more intimately with internet services and gains unexpected abilities. This imminent risk spans beyond individual roles or use-cases—it permeates our extensive digital ecosystem, possibly reshaping our interaction with technology on a monumental scale. As we grapple with these issues, our focus should converge on crafting accountable and responsible AI, vigilant of potential hazards and those most vulnerable to them.

‍

What is Fairness in AI?

Recognizing those most at risk from AI propels us towards the necessity of fairness in AI, which serves to mitigate these risks and promote an equitable digital landscape. Fairness in machine learning, however, is not a clear-cut concept. With numerous, sometimes conflicting definitions coexisting, discerning the most appropriate one requires thoughtful, context-specific deliberation.

‍

In the words of Nikola Konstantinov, esteemed post-doctoral fellow at the prestigious ETH AI Center of ETH Zürich, "Fairness in AI fundamentally revolves around ensuring AI models refrain from discriminatory behavior during decision-making processes. This principle particularly pertains to protected attributes like race, gender, or country of origin." (source: Finding the Fairness in AI | News | Communications of the ACM)

‍

It's clear that achieving fairness in AI is not a simple task that can be done in the same way for everyone. Instead, it is a journey that mandates meticulous and mindful navigation to harness AI's enormous power ethically and equitably.

Broadly, the universally acknowledged concepts of fairness fall into one of three categories:

‍

- Individual Fairness: This implies every person should be assessed based on their unique circumstances. If two individuals are alike in significant aspects, they should be treated similarly.

- Group Fairness: This advocates for uniform treatment of groups. The aim here is to eradicate favoritism or discrimination against any particular group.

- Subgroup Fairness: This combines the previous two ideas, endorsing fairness for individuals and groups. The objective is to strike a balance, ensuring fair treatment for everyone, whether viewed individually or as part of a group.

‍

Navigating these fairness concepts poses genuine dilemmas and demands careful deliberation. Inherent biases, leading to systematic unfairness in decisions, can result in profound negative social consequences, often disproportionately affecting disadvantaged communities. Therefore, it's vital to detect and mitigate the impact of these biases, which often surface as unequal treatment in AI applications towards different groups based on their protected attributes.

‍

The Tightrope Walk: Fairness Trade-offs

It's worth acknowledging the inherent trade-offs between different definitions of fairness. As demonstrated in the paper, "Inherent Trade-offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores," the authors argue that it's virtually impossible to simultaneously satisfy different fairness definitions without trivializing them. This implies that actualizing one form of fairness might inadvertently compromise another. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness (arxiv.org)

‍

Furthermore, there's an evident trade-off between fairness and performance. A quest for heightened fairness can often trigger a drop in performance.

‍

Appreciating these trade-offs is instrumental when designing and deploying AI algorithms. It necessitates a delicate balancing act to ensure that the quest for fairness doesn't undercut the system's efficacy or inadvertently foster other forms of unfairness. Thus, the challenge doesn't solely reside in crafting fair and transparent AI algorithms, but also in proficiently navigating these inherent trade-offs to optimize outcomes.

‍

Calvin Risk: Fairness Metrics

Recognizing and preserving fairness in AI algorithms is a priority, especially in mitigating discrimination against certain groups. To aid this endeavor, we've devised Calvin, an AI risk management platform that scrutinizes fairness from individual and group perspectives. But how does Calvin function? Let's explore its fundamental mechanics.

‍

Calvin's fairness evaluation hinges on certain inputs. These include identifying a protected group—defined by gender, race, economic status, age, education, etc.—and gathering the associated data for these groups. Additionally, we need the predictions and accurate labels for training, test, and production data for the current live model. Optionally, protected attributes can also be ranked based on their importance. Armed with these inputs, Calvin delivers key fairness metrics.

‍

Each metric is computed for every subgroup across all dimensions relevant to the user. For each risk metric, we identify the worst score and average it across the subgroup dimensions pertinent to the model. The outcome? A comprehensive, nuanced perspective of fairness as it applies to your AI system.

‍

In the intricate world of AI, Calvin Risk can be an invaluable ally. It provides the capacity to assess your AI models for fairness and inform users to make necessary adjustments. After all, fairness in AI is not merely a theoretical notion—it's a practical necessity that can have significant impacts on the individuals and groups your AI interacts with.