AI Ethics Statements

Carolyn Ashurst · Emmie Hine · Paul Sedille · Alexis Carlier

24 citations0/0 files storedACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT)

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Ethics and Social Impacts of AI scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Ethics statements have been proposed as a mechanism to increase transparency and promote reflection on the societal impacts of published research. In 2020, the machine learning (ML) conference NeurIPS broke new ground by requiring that all papers include a broader impact statement. This requirement was removed in 2021, in favour of a checklist approach. The 2020 statements therefore provide a unique opportunity to learn from the broader impact experiment: to investigate the benefits and challenges of this and similar governance mechanisms, as well as providing an insight into how ML researchers think about the societal impacts of their own work. Such learning is needed as NeurIPS and other venues continue to question and adapt their policies. To enable this, we have created a dataset containing the impact statements from all NeurIPS 2020 papers, along with additional information such as affiliation type, location and subject area, and a simple visualisation tool for exploration. We also provide an initial quantitative analysis of the dataset, covering representation, engagement, common themes, and willingness to discuss potential harms alongside benefits. We investigate how these vary by geography, affiliation type and subject area. Drawing on these findings, we discuss the potential benefits and negative outcomes of ethics statement requirements, and their possible causes and associated challenges. These lead us to several lessons to be learnt from the 2020 requirement: (i) the importance of creating the right incentives, (ii) the need for clear expectations and guidance, and (iii) the importance of transparency and constructive deliberation. We encourage other researchers to use our dataset to provide additional analysis, to further our understanding of how researchers responded to this requirement, and to investigate the benefits and challenges of this and related mechanisms.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

References

2018Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor 2014Big Data's Disparate Impact 2018Algorithms of Oppression 2020The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation 2021Institutionalizing ethics in AI through broader impact requirements

Cited by

2024From human-centered to social-centered artificial intelligence: Assessing ChatGPT's impact through disruptive events 2024Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel 2024BLIP: Facilitating the Exploration of Undesirable Consequences of Digital Technologies 2023The Ethics of Computational Social Science 2022Disentangling the Components of Ethical Research in Machine Learning 2024A comprehensive review of techniques for documenting artificial intelligence 2023ImpactBot: Chatbot Leveraging Language Models to Automate Feedback and Promote Critical Thinking Around Impact Statements

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.