Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

“It would be pretty immoral to choose a random algorithm”

“It would be pretty immoral to choose a random algorithm” The purpose of this paper is to report on empirical work conducted to open up algorithmic interpretability and transparency. In recent years, significant concerns have arisen regarding the increasing pervasiveness of algorithms and the impact of automated decision-making in our lives. Particularly problematic is the lack of transparency surrounding the development of these algorithmic systems and their use. It is often suggested that to make algorithms more fair, they should be made more transparent, but exactly how this can be achieved remains unclear.Design/methodology/approachAn empirical study was conducted to begin unpacking issues around algorithmic interpretability and transparency. The study involved discussion-based experiments centred around a limited resource allocation scenario which required participants to select their most and least preferred algorithms in a particular context. In addition to collecting quantitative data about preferences, qualitative data captured participants’ expressed reasoning behind their selections.FindingsEven when provided with the same information about the scenario, participants made different algorithm preference selections and rationalised their selections differently. The study results revealed diversity in participant responses but consistency in the emphasis they placed on normative concerns and the importance of context when accounting for their selections. The issues raised by participants as important to their selections resonate closely with values that have come to the fore in current debates over algorithm prevalence.Originality/valueThis work developed a novel empirical approach that demonstrates the value in pursuing algorithmic interpretability and transparency while also highlighting the complexities surrounding their accomplishment. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society Emerald Publishing

“It would be pretty immoral to choose a random algorithm”

Download PDF
19 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/it-would-be-pretty-immoral-to-choose-a-random-algorithm-3g82Fur0W0
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1477-996X
DOI
10.1108/jices-11-2018-0092
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on empirical work conducted to open up algorithmic interpretability and transparency. In recent years, significant concerns have arisen regarding the increasing pervasiveness of algorithms and the impact of automated decision-making in our lives. Particularly problematic is the lack of transparency surrounding the development of these algorithmic systems and their use. It is often suggested that to make algorithms more fair, they should be made more transparent, but exactly how this can be achieved remains unclear.Design/methodology/approachAn empirical study was conducted to begin unpacking issues around algorithmic interpretability and transparency. The study involved discussion-based experiments centred around a limited resource allocation scenario which required participants to select their most and least preferred algorithms in a particular context. In addition to collecting quantitative data about preferences, qualitative data captured participants’ expressed reasoning behind their selections.FindingsEven when provided with the same information about the scenario, participants made different algorithm preference selections and rationalised their selections differently. The study results revealed diversity in participant responses but consistency in the emphasis they placed on normative concerns and the importance of context when accounting for their selections. The issues raised by participants as important to their selections resonate closely with values that have come to the fore in current debates over algorithm prevalence.Originality/valueThis work developed a novel empirical approach that demonstrates the value in pursuing algorithmic interpretability and transparency while also highlighting the complexities surrounding their accomplishment.

Journal

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society – Emerald Publishing

Published: Sep 4, 2019

Keywords: Algorithms; Transparency; Interpretability

References

  • Seeing without knowing: limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability
    Ananny, M.; Crawford, K.
  • Fairness in machine learning: lessons from political philosophy
    Binns, R.; Friedler, S.A.; Wilson, C.
  • On the morality of artificial agents
    Floridi, L.; Sanders, J.W.
  • Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: the challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration
    Howard, P.N.; Woolley, S.; Calo, R.
  • Privacy concerns arising from internet service personalisation filters
    Koene, A.; Perez, E.; Carter, C.J.; Statache, R.; Adolphs, S.; O’Malley, C.; Rodden, T.; McAuley, D.
  • Algorithmic fairness in online information mediating systems
    Koene, A.; Perez, E.; Webb, H.; Patel, M.; Jirotka, M.; Ceppi, S.; Rovatsos, M.; Lane, G.
  • Algorithm-assisted decision-making in the public sector: framing the issues using administrative law rules governing discretionary power
    Oswald, M.
  • Responsible research and innovation: drom science in society to science for society, with society
    Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J.
  • Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract
    Rahwan, I.
  • Loomis vs WI
  • The tyranny of transparency
    Strathern, M.
  • Discrimination in online ad delivery
    Sweeney, L.