Cargando…

Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community

The recent incidents involving Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Google have triggered an important discussion emblematic of issues arising from the practice of AI Ethics research. We offer this paper and its bibliography as a resource to the global community of AI Ethics Researchers who...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ebell, Christoph, Baeza-Yates, Ricardo, Benjamins, Richard, Cai, Hengjin, Coeckelbergh, Mark, Duarte, Tania, Hickok, Merve, Jacquet, Aurelie, Kim, Angela, Krijger, Joris, MacIntyre, John, Madhamshettiwar, Piyush, Maffeo, Lauren, Matthews, Jeanna, Medsker, Larry, Smith, Peter, Thais, Savannah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8043756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34790946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00052-5
_version_ 1783678359526440960
author Ebell, Christoph
Baeza-Yates, Ricardo
Benjamins, Richard
Cai, Hengjin
Coeckelbergh, Mark
Duarte, Tania
Hickok, Merve
Jacquet, Aurelie
Kim, Angela
Krijger, Joris
MacIntyre, John
Madhamshettiwar, Piyush
Maffeo, Lauren
Matthews, Jeanna
Medsker, Larry
Smith, Peter
Thais, Savannah
author_facet Ebell, Christoph
Baeza-Yates, Ricardo
Benjamins, Richard
Cai, Hengjin
Coeckelbergh, Mark
Duarte, Tania
Hickok, Merve
Jacquet, Aurelie
Kim, Angela
Krijger, Joris
MacIntyre, John
Madhamshettiwar, Piyush
Maffeo, Lauren
Matthews, Jeanna
Medsker, Larry
Smith, Peter
Thais, Savannah
author_sort Ebell, Christoph
collection PubMed
description The recent incidents involving Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Google have triggered an important discussion emblematic of issues arising from the practice of AI Ethics research. We offer this paper and its bibliography as a resource to the global community of AI Ethics Researchers who argue for the protection and freedom of this research community. Corporate, as well as academic research settings, involve responsibility, duties, dissent, and conflicts of interest. This article is meant to provide a reference point at the beginning of this decade regarding matters of consensus and disagreement on how to enact AI Ethics for the good of our institutions, society, and individuals. We have herein identified issues that arise at the intersection of information technology, socially encoded behaviors, and biases, and individual researchers’ work and responsibilities. We revisit some of the most pressing problems with AI decision-making and examine the difficult relationships between corporate interests and the early years of AI Ethics research. We propose several possible actions we can take collectively to support researchers throughout the field of AI Ethics, especially those from marginalized groups who may experience even more barriers in speaking out and having their research amplified. We promote the global community of AI Ethics researchers and the evolution of standards accepted in our profession guiding a technological future that makes life better for all.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8043756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80437562021-04-14 Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community Ebell, Christoph Baeza-Yates, Ricardo Benjamins, Richard Cai, Hengjin Coeckelbergh, Mark Duarte, Tania Hickok, Merve Jacquet, Aurelie Kim, Angela Krijger, Joris MacIntyre, John Madhamshettiwar, Piyush Maffeo, Lauren Matthews, Jeanna Medsker, Larry Smith, Peter Thais, Savannah AI Ethics Opinion Paper The recent incidents involving Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, and Google have triggered an important discussion emblematic of issues arising from the practice of AI Ethics research. We offer this paper and its bibliography as a resource to the global community of AI Ethics Researchers who argue for the protection and freedom of this research community. Corporate, as well as academic research settings, involve responsibility, duties, dissent, and conflicts of interest. This article is meant to provide a reference point at the beginning of this decade regarding matters of consensus and disagreement on how to enact AI Ethics for the good of our institutions, society, and individuals. We have herein identified issues that arise at the intersection of information technology, socially encoded behaviors, and biases, and individual researchers’ work and responsibilities. We revisit some of the most pressing problems with AI decision-making and examine the difficult relationships between corporate interests and the early years of AI Ethics research. We propose several possible actions we can take collectively to support researchers throughout the field of AI Ethics, especially those from marginalized groups who may experience even more barriers in speaking out and having their research amplified. We promote the global community of AI Ethics researchers and the evolution of standards accepted in our profession guiding a technological future that makes life better for all. Springer International Publishing 2021-04-13 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8043756/ /pubmed/34790946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00052-5 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Opinion Paper
Ebell, Christoph
Baeza-Yates, Ricardo
Benjamins, Richard
Cai, Hengjin
Coeckelbergh, Mark
Duarte, Tania
Hickok, Merve
Jacquet, Aurelie
Kim, Angela
Krijger, Joris
MacIntyre, John
Madhamshettiwar, Piyush
Maffeo, Lauren
Matthews, Jeanna
Medsker, Larry
Smith, Peter
Thais, Savannah
Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community
title Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community
title_full Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community
title_fullStr Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community
title_full_unstemmed Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community
title_short Towards intellectual freedom in an AI Ethics Global Community
title_sort towards intellectual freedom in an ai ethics global community
topic Opinion Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8043756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34790946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00052-5
work_keys_str_mv AT ebellchristoph towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT baezayatesricardo towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT benjaminsrichard towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT caihengjin towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT coeckelberghmark towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT duartetania towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT hickokmerve towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT jacquetaurelie towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT kimangela towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT krijgerjoris towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT macintyrejohn towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT madhamshettiwarpiyush towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT maffeolauren towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT matthewsjeanna towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT medskerlarry towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT smithpeter towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity
AT thaissavannah towardsintellectualfreedominanaiethicsglobalcommunity