Responsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Too

All types of research, development, and policy work can have unintended, adverse consequences - work in responsible artificial intelligence (RAI), ethical AI, or ethics in AI is no exception.

Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices

AI and NLP publication venues have increasingly encouraged researchers to reflect on possible ethical considerations, adverse impacts, and other responsible AI issues their work might engender. However, for specific NLP tasks our understanding of how prevalent such issues are, or when and why these issues are likely to arise, remains limited. Focusing on text summarization -- a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community -- we examine research and reporting practices in the current literature. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals. We also discuss current evaluation practices and consider how authors discuss the limitations of both prior work and their own work. Overall, we find that relatively few papers engage with possible stakeholders or contexts of use, which limits their consideration of potential downstream adverse impacts or other responsible AI issues. Based on our findings, we make recommendations on concrete practices and research directions.

"One-size-fits-all"? Observations and Expectations of NLG Systems Across Identity-Related Language Features

Fairness-related assumptions about what constitutes appropriate NLG system behaviors range from invariance, where systems are expected to respond identically to social groups, to adaptation, where responses should instead vary across them. We design and conduct five case studies, in which we perturb different types of identity-related language features (names, roles, locations, dialect, and style) in NLG system inputs to illuminate tensions around invariance and adaptation. We outline people's expectations of system behaviors, and surface potential caveats of these two contrasting yet commonly-held assumptions. We find that motivations for adaptation include social norms, cultural differences, feature-specific information, and accommodation; motivations for invariance include perspectives that favor prescriptivism, view adaptation as unnecessary or too difficult for NLG systems to do appropriately, and are wary of false assumptions. Our findings highlight open challenges around defining what constitutes fair NLG system behavior.

Investigating Failures to Generalize for Coreference Resolution Models

Coreference resolution models are often evaluated on multiple datasets. Datasets vary, however, in how coreference is realized -- i.e., how the theoretical concept of coreference is operationalized in the dataset -- due to factors such as the choice of corpora and annotation guidelines. We investigate the extent to which errors of current coreference resolution models are associated with existing differences in operationalization across datasets (OntoNotes, PreCo, and Winogrande). Specifically, we distinguish between and break down model performance into categories corresponding to several types of coreference, including coreferring generic mentions, compound modifiers, and copula predicates, among others. This break down helps us investigate how state-of-the-art models might vary in their ability to generalize across different coreference types. In our experiments, for example, models trained on OntoNotes perform poorly on generic mentions and copula predicates in PreCo. Our findings help calibrate expectations of current coreference resolution models; and, future work can explicitly account for those types of coreference that are empirically associated with poor generalization when developing models.

Can Workers Meaningfully Consent to Workplace Wellbeing Technologies?

Sensing technologies deployed in the workplace can collect detailed data about individual activities and group interactions that are otherwise difficult to capture. A hopeful application of these technologies is that they can help businesses and workers optimize productivity and wellbeing. However, given the inherent and structural power dynamics in the workplace, the prevalent approach of accepting tacit compliance to monitor work activities rather than seeking workers' meaningful consent raises privacy and ethical concerns. This paper unpacks a range of challenges that workers face when consenting to workplace wellbeing technologies. Using a hypothetical case to prompt reflection among six multi-stakeholder focus groups involving 15 participants, we explored participants' expectations and capacity to consent to workplace sensing technologies. We sketched possible interventions that could better support more meaningful consent to workplace wellbeing technologies by drawing on critical computing and feminist scholarship -- which reframes consent from a purely individual choice to a structural condition experienced at the individual level that needs to be freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, and specific (FRIES). The focus groups revealed that workers are vulnerable to meaningless consent -- dynamics that undo the value of data gathered in the name of "wellbeing," as well as an erosion of autonomy in the workplace. To meaningfully consent, participants wanted changes to how the technology works and is being used, as well as to the policies and practices surrounding the technology. Our mapping of what prevents workers from meaningfully consenting to workplace wellbeing technologies (challenges) and what they require to do so (interventions) underscores that the lack of meaningful consent is a structural problem requiring socio-technical solutions.

Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Current & Future Trends

In recent years, the CHI community has seen significant growth in research on Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence. While different research communities may use different terminology to discuss similar topics, all of this work is ultimately aimed at developing AI that benefits humanity while being grounded in human rights and ethics, and reducing the potential harms of AI. In this special interest group, we aim to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in these topics to map current and future research trends to advance this important area of research by fostering collaboration and sharing ideas.

The KITMUS Test: Evaluating Knowledge Integration from Multiple Sources in Natural Language Understanding Systems

Many state-of-the-art natural language understanding (NLU) models are based on pretrained neural language models. These models often make inferences using information from multiple sources. An important class of such inferences are those that require both background knowledge, presumably contained in a model's pretrained parameters, and instance-specific information that is supplied at inference time. However, the integration and reasoning abilities of NLU models in the presence of multiple knowledge sources have been largely understudied. In this work, we propose a test suite of coreference resolution tasks that require reasoning over multiple facts. Our dataset is organized into subtasks that differ in terms of which knowledge sources contain relevant facts. We evaluate state-of-the-art coreference resolution models on our dataset. Our results indicate that several models struggle to reason on-the-fly over knowledge observed both at pretrain time and at inference time. However, with task-specific training, a subset of models demonstrates the ability to integrate certain knowledge types from multiple sources.

How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI

Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible artificial intelligence technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups: a representative sample of the US population (N=743), a sample of crowdworkers (N=755), and a sample of AI practitioners (N=175). Our results empirically confirm a common concern: AI practitioners' value priorities differ from those of the general public. Compared to the US-representative sample, AI practitioners appear to consider responsible AI values as less important and emphasize a different set of values. In contrast, self-identified women and black respondents found responsible AI values more important than other groups. Surprisingly, more liberal-leaning participants, rather than participants reporting experiences with discrimination, were more likely to prioritize fairness than other groups. Our findings highlight the importance of paying attention to who gets to define responsible AI.

Deconstructing NLG Evaluation: Evaluation Practices, Assumptions, and Their Implications

There are many ways to express similar things in text, which makes evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems difficult. Compounding this difficulty is the need to assess varying quality criteria depending on the deployment setting. While the landscape of NLG evaluation has been well-mapped, practitioners' goals, assumptions, and constraints -- which inform decisions about what, when, and how to evaluate -- are often partially or implicitly stated, or not stated at all. Combining a formative semi-structured interview study of NLG practitioners (N=18) with a survey study of a broader sample of practitioners (N=61), we surface goals, community practices, assumptions, and constraints that shape NLG evaluations, examining their implications and how they embody ethical considerations.

Increasing Trust in AI Services through Supplier's Declarations of Conformity

The accuracy and reliability of machine learning algorithms are an important concern for suppliers of artificial intelligence (AI) services, but considerations beyond accuracy, such as safety, security, and provenance, are also critical elements to engender consumers' trust in a service. In this paper, we propose a supplier's declaration of conformity (SDoC) for AI services to help increase trust in AI services. An SDoC is a transparent, standardized, but often not legally required, document used in many industries and sectors to describe the lineage of a product along with the safety and performance testing it has undergone. We envision an SDoC for AI services to contain purpose, performance, safety, security, and provenance information to be completed and voluntarily released by AI service providers for examination by consumers. Importantly, it conveys product-level rather than component-level functional testing. We suggest a set of declaration items tailored to AI and provide examples for two fictitious AI services.