Streamlining Advanced Taxi Assignment Strategies based on Legal Analysis

In recent years many novel applications have appeared that promote the provision of services and activities in a collaborative manner. The key idea behind such systems is to take advantage of idle or underused capacities of existing resources, in order to provide improved services that assist people in their daily tasks, with additional functionality, enhanced efficiency, and/or reduced cost. Particularly in the domain of urban transportation, many researchers have put forward novel ideas, which are then implemented and evaluated through prototypes that usually draw upon AI methods and tools. However, such proposals also bring up multiple non-technical issues that need to be identified and addressed adequately if such systems are ever meant to be applied to the real world. While, in practice, legal and ethical aspects related to such AI-based systems are seldomly considered in the beginning of the research and development process, we argue that they not only restrict design decisions, but can also help guiding them. In this manuscript, we set out from a prototype of a taxi coordination service that mediates between individual (and autonomous) taxis and potential customers. After representing key aspects of its operation in a semi-structured manner, we analyse its viability from the viewpoint of current legal restrictions and constraints, so as to identify additional non-functional requirements as well as options to address them. Then, we go one step ahead, and actually modify the existing prototype to incorporate the previously identified recommendations. Performing experiments with this improved system helps us identify the most adequate option among several legally admissible alternatives.

Which Argumentative Aspects of Hate Speech in Social Media can be reliably identified?

With the increasing diversity of use cases of large language models, a more informative treatment of texts seems necessary. An argumentative analysis could foster a more reasoned usage of chatbots, text completion mechanisms or other applications. However, it is unclear which aspects of argumentation can be reliably identified and integrated in language models. In this paper, we present an empirical assessment of the reliability with which different argumentative aspects can be automatically identified in hate speech in social media. We have enriched the Hateval corpus (Basile et al. 2019) with a manual annotation of some argumentative components, adapted from Wagemans (2016)'s Periodic Table of Arguments. We show that some components can be identified with reasonable reliability. For those that present a high error ratio, we analyze the patterns of disagreement between expert annotators and errors in automatic procedures, and we propose adaptations of those categories that can be more reliably reproduced.