人工智能算法越来越多地被公共机构作为决策助手，并承诺克服人类决策者的偏见。同时，他们可能会在人类算法中引入新的偏见。在心理学和公共行政文献上，我们调查了两个关键偏见：即使面对来自其他来源的警告信号（自动化偏见）的警告信号，对算法建议过度依赖，并选择性地采用算法建议时，这与刻板印象相对应（Selective Adherence）。我们通过在荷兰瓦中进行的三项实验研究评估这些研究，讨论了我们发现对公共部门决策在自动化时代的影响。总体而言，我们的研究表明，对已经脆弱和处境不利的公民自动化自动化的潜在负面影响。

解释已被框起来是更好，更公平的人类决策的基本特征。在公平的背景下，这一点尚未得到适当的研究，因为先前的工作主要根据他们对人们的看法的影响进行了评估。但是，我们认为，要促进更公正的决定，它们必须使人类能够辨别正确和错误的AI建议。为了验证我们的概念论点，我们进行了一项实证研究，以研究解释，公平感和依赖行为之间的关系。我们的发现表明，解释会影响人们的公平感，这反过来又影响了依赖。但是，我们观察到，低公平的看法会导致AI建议的更多替代，无论它们是正确还是错。这（i）引起了人们对现有解释对增强分配公平性的有用性的怀疑，并且（ii）为为什么不必将感知作为适当依赖的代理而被混淆的重要案例。

\ EMPH {人工智能}（AI）系统越来越多地参与影响我们生活的决策，确保自动决策是公平的，道德已经成为最优先事项。直观地，我们觉得类似人的决定，人工代理人的判断应该必然地以一些道德原则为基础。然而，如果有关决定所基础的所有有关因素的全部信息，可以真正伦理（人类或人为）和公平（根据任何道德理论）和公平（根据公平的任何概念）的规定在决策时。这提出了两个问题：（1）在设置中，我们依赖使用通过监督学习获得的分类器的AI系统，存在一些感应/泛化，即使在学习期间也可能不存在一些相关属性。 （2）根据游戏揭示任何 - 无论是道德的纯策略都不可避免地易于剥削，建模这些决定。此外，在许多游戏中，只能通过使用混合策略来获得纳什均衡，即实现数学上最佳结果，决定必须随机化。在本文中，我们认为，在监督学习设置中，存在至少以及确定性分类器的随机分类器，因此在许多情况下可能是最佳选择。我们支持我们的理论效果，具有一个实证研究，表明对随机人工决策者的积极社会态度，并讨论了与使用与当前的AI政策和标准化举措相关的随机分类器相关的一些政策和实施问题。

机器学习（ML）技术在教育方面越来越普遍，从预测学生辍学，到协助大学入学以及促进MOOC的兴起。考虑到这些新颖用途的快速增长，迫切需要调查ML技术如何支持长期以来的教育原则和目标。在这项工作中，我们阐明了这一复杂的景观绘制，以对教育专家的访谈进行定性见解。这些访谈包括对过去十年中著名应用ML会议上发表的ML教育（ML4ED）论文的深入评估。我们的中心研究目标是批判性地研究这些论文的陈述或暗示教育和社会目标如何与他们解决的ML问题保持一致。也就是说，技术问题的提出，目标，方法和解释结果与手头的教育问题保持一致。我们发现，在ML生命周期的两个部分中存在跨学科的差距，并且尤其突出：从教育目标和将预测转换为干预措施的ML问题的提出。我们使用这些见解来提出扩展的ML生命周期，这也可能适用于在其他领域中使用ML。我们的工作加入了越来越多的跨教育和ML研究的荟萃分析研究，以及对ML社会影响的批判性分析。具体而言，它填补了对机器学习的主要技术理解与与学生合作和政策合作的教育研究人员的观点之间的差距。

越来越多的监督委员会和监管机构试图监视和管理对人们生活做出决定的算法。先前的工作已经探讨了人们如何认为应该做出算法的决策，但是对诸如社会人工学或直接经验之类的个人因素如何以决策情景的方式影响了他们的道德观点。我们通过探索人们对程序算法公平的一个方面的看法（在算法决定中使用特定功能的公平性）迈出了填补这一空白的一步，这与他们的（i）人口统计学（年龄，教育，性别，种族，政治观点，政治观点，政治观点， ）和（ii）算法决策方案的个人经历。我们发现，具有算法决策背景的政治观点和个人经验会极大地影响对使用不同特征进行保释决策的公平性的看法。利用我们的结果，我们讨论了对利益相关者参与和算法监督的影响，包括需要考虑在构成监督和监管机构时考虑多样性的多个维度。

值得信赖的人工智能（AI）已成为一个重要的话题，因为在AI系统及其创造者中的信任已经丢失。研究人员，公司和政府具有远离技术开发，部署和监督的边缘化群体的长期和痛苦的历史。结果，这些技术对小群体的有用甚至有害。我们争辩说，渴望信任的任何AI开发，部署和监测框架必须纳入女权主义，非剥削参与性设计原则和强大，外部和持续监测和测试。我们还向考虑到透明度，公平性和问责制的可靠性方面的重要性，特别是考虑对任何值得信赖的AI系统的核心价值观的正义和转移权力。创建值得信赖的AI通过资金，支持和赋予Grassroots组织，如AI Queer等基层组织开始，因此AI领域具有多样性和纳入可信和有效地发展的可信赖AI。我们利用AI的专家知识Queer通过其多年的工作和宣传来讨论以及如何以及如何在数据集和AI系统中使用如何以及如何在数据集和AI系统中使用以及沿着这些线路的危害。基于此，我们分享了对AI的性别方法，进一步提出了Queer认识论并分析它可以带来AI的好处。我们还讨论了如何在愿景中讨论如何使用此Queer认识论，提出与AI和性别多样性和隐私和酷儿数据保护相关的框架。

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.

教育技术，以及他们部署的学校教育系统，制定了特定的意识形态，了解有关知识的重要事项以及学习者应该如何学习。作为人工智能技术 - 在教育和超越 - 可能导致边缘社区的不公平结果，已经制定了各种方法来评估和减轻AI的有害影响。然而，我们争辩于本文认为，在AI模型中的性能差异的基础上评估公平的主导范式是面对教育AI系统（RE）生产的系统性不公平。我们在批判理论和黑色女权主义奖学金中汲取了结构性不公正的镜头，以批判性地审查了几个普遍研究的和广泛采用的教育AI类别，并探讨了他们如何融入和重现结构不公正和不公平的历史遗产和不公平的历史遗产。他们模型绩效的奇偶阶段。我们关闭了替代愿景，为教育ai提供更公平的未来。

业务分析（BA）的广泛采用带来了财务收益和提高效率。但是，当BA以公正的影响为决定时，这些进步同时引起了人们对法律和道德挑战的不断增加。作为对这些关注的回应，对算法公平性的新兴研究涉及算法输出，这些算法可能会导致不同的结果或其他形式的对人群亚组的不公正现象，尤其是那些在历史上被边缘化的人。公平性是根据法律合规，社会责任和效用是相关的；如果不充分和系统地解决，不公平的BA系统可能会导致社会危害，也可能威胁到组织自己的生存，其竞争力和整体绩效。本文提供了有关算法公平的前瞻性，注重BA的评论。我们首先回顾有关偏见来源和措施的最新研究以及偏见缓解算法。然后，我们对公用事业关系的详细讨论进行了详细的讨论，强调经常假设这两种构造之间经常是错误的或短视的。最后，我们通过确定企业学者解决有效和负责任的BA的关键的有影响力的公开挑战的机会来绘制前进的道路。

Deepfakes are computationally-created entities that falsely represent reality. They can take image, video, and audio modalities, and pose a threat to many areas of systems and societies, comprising a topic of interest to various aspects of cybersecurity and cybersafety. In 2020 a workshop consulting AI experts from academia, policing, government, the private sector, and state security agencies ranked deepfakes as the most serious AI threat. These experts noted that since fake material can propagate through many uncontrolled routes, changes in citizen behaviour may be the only effective defence. This study aims to assess human ability to identify image deepfakes of human faces (StyleGAN2:FFHQ) from nondeepfake images (FFHQ), and to assess the effectiveness of simple interventions intended to improve detection accuracy. Using an online survey, 280 participants were randomly allocated to one of four groups: a control group, and 3 assistance interventions. Each participant was shown a sequence of 20 images randomly selected from a pool of 50 deepfake and 50 real images of human faces. Participants were asked if each image was AI-generated or not, to report their confidence, and to describe the reasoning behind each response. Overall detection accuracy was only just above chance and none of the interventions significantly improved this. Participants' confidence in their answers was high and unrelated to accuracy. Assessing the results on a per-image basis reveals participants consistently found certain images harder to label correctly, but reported similarly high confidence regardless of the image. Thus, although participant accuracy was 62% overall, this accuracy across images ranged quite evenly between 85% and 30%, with an accuracy of below 50% for one in every five images. We interpret the findings as suggesting that there is a need for an urgent call to action to address this threat.

人为决策的合作努力实现超出人类或人工智能表现的团队绩效。但是，许多因素都会影响人类团队的成功，包括用户的领域专业知识，AI系统的心理模型，对建议的信任等等。这项工作检查了用户与三种模拟算法模型的互动，所有这些模型都具有相似的精度，但对其真正的正面和真实负率进行了不同的调整。我们的研究检查了在非平凡的血管标签任务中的用户性能，参与者表明给定的血管是流动还是停滞。我们的结果表明，虽然AI-Assistant的建议可以帮助用户决策，但用户相对于AI的基线性能和AI错误类型的补充调整等因素会显着影响整体团队的整体绩效。新手用户有所改善，但不能达到AI的准确性。高度熟练的用户通常能够识别何时应遵循AI建议，并通常保持或提高其性能。与AI相似的准确性水平的表演者在AI建议方面是最大的变化。此外，我们发现用户对AI的性能亲戚的看法也对给出AI建议时的准确性是否有所提高产生重大影响。这项工作提供了有关与人类协作有关的因素的复杂性的见解，并提供了有关如何开发以人为中心的AI算法来补充用户在决策任务中的建议。

The optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final, and much-anticipated, cornerstone of AI regulation in the EU. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and other countries. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm's use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court. This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law-more particularly, through Title

Explainable AI (XAI) is widely viewed as a sine qua non for ever-expanding AI research. A better understanding of the needs of XAI users, as well as human-centered evaluations of explainable models are both a necessity and a challenge. In this paper, we explore how HCI and AI researchers conduct user studies in XAI applications based on a systematic literature review. After identifying and thoroughly analyzing 85 core papers with human-based XAI evaluations over the past five years, we categorize them along the measured characteristics of explanatory methods, namely trust, understanding, fairness, usability, and human-AI team performance. Our research shows that XAI is spreading more rapidly in certain application domains, such as recommender systems than in others, but that user evaluations are still rather sparse and incorporate hardly any insights from cognitive or social sciences. Based on a comprehensive discussion of best practices, i.e., common models, design choices, and measures in user studies, we propose practical guidelines on designing and conducting user studies for XAI researchers and practitioners. Lastly, this survey also highlights several open research directions, particularly linking psychological science and human-centered XAI.

Recommender systems can strongly influence which information we see online, e.g., on social media, and thus impact our beliefs, decisions, and actions. At the same time, these systems can create substantial business value for different stakeholders. Given the growing potential impact of such AI-based systems on individuals, organizations, and society, questions of fairness have gained increased attention in recent years. However, research on fairness in recommender systems is still a developing area. In this survey, we first review the fundamental concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. Afterward, through a review of more than 150 scholarly publications, we present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized, e.g., in terms of general research methodology, fairness measures, and algorithmic approaches. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to specific research gaps. In particular, we find that in many research works in computer science, very abstract problem operationalizations are prevalent, and questions of the underlying normative claims and what represents a fair recommendation in the context of a given application are often not discussed in depth. These observations call for more interdisciplinary research to address fairness in recommendation in a more comprehensive and impactful manner.

在许多现实世界的背景下，成功的人类合作要求人类有效地将补充信息来源整合到AI信息的决策中。但是，实际上，人类决策者常常缺乏对AI模型与自己有关的信息的了解。关于如何有效沟通不可观察的指南，几乎没有可用的准则：可能影响结果但模型无法使用的功能。在这项工作中，我们进行了一项在线实验，以了解以及如何显式交流潜在相关的不可观念，从而影响人们在做出预测时如何整合模型输出和无法观察到的。我们的发现表明，提示有关不可观察的提示可以改变人类整合模型输出和不可观察的方式，但不一定会改善性能。此外，这些提示的影响可能会根据决策者的先前领域专业知识而有所不同。我们通过讨论对基于AI的决策支持工具的未来研究和设计的影响来结束。

随着AI系统表现出越来越强烈的预测性能，它们的采用已经在许多域中种植。然而，在刑事司法和医疗保健等高赌场域中，由于安全，道德和法律问题，往往是完全自动化的，但是完全手工方法可能是不准确和耗时的。因此，对研究界的兴趣日益增长，以增加人力决策。除了为此目的开发AI技术之外，人民AI决策的新兴领域必须采用实证方法，以形成对人类如何互动和与AI合作做出决定的基础知识。为了邀请和帮助结构研究努力了解理解和改善人为 - AI决策的研究，我们近期对本课题的实证人体研究的文献。我们总结了在三个重要方面的100多篇论文中的研究设计选择：（1）决定任务，（2）AI模型和AI援助要素，以及（3）评估指标。对于每个方面，我们总结了当前的趋势，讨论了现场当前做法中的差距，并列出了未来研究的建议。我们的调查强调了开发共同框架的需要考虑人类 - AI决策的设计和研究空间，因此研究人员可以在研究设计中进行严格的选择，研究界可以互相构建并产生更广泛的科学知识。我们还希望这项调查将成为HCI和AI社区的桥梁，共同努力，相互塑造人类决策的经验科学和计算技术。

Xenophobia is one of the key drivers of marginalisation, discrimination, and conflict, yet many prominent machine learning (ML) fairness frameworks fail to comprehensively measure or mitigate the resulting xenophobic harms. Here we aim to bridge this conceptual gap and help facilitate safe and ethical design of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions. We ground our analysis of the impact of xenophobia by first identifying distinct types of xenophobic harms, and then applying this framework across a number of prominent AI application domains, reviewing the potential interplay between AI and xenophobia on social media and recommendation systems, healthcare, immigration, employment, as well as biases in large pre-trained models. These help inform our recommendations towards an inclusive, xenophilic design of future AI systems.

深度神经网络（DNN）在解释图像数据方面取得了令人印象深刻的进步，因此可以在某种程度上可以在某种程度上使用它们，以在自动驾驶（例如自动驾驶）中使用它们。从道德的角度来看，AI算法应考虑到街道上的物体或受试者的脆弱性，范围从“完全没有”，例如这条路本身，是行人的“高脆弱性”。考虑到这一点的一种方法是定义一个语义类别与另一个语义类别的混淆成本，并使用基于成本的决策规则来解释概率，即DNN的输出。但是，如何定义成本结构是一个开放的问题，应该负责谁来执行此操作，从而定义了AI-Algorithms实际上将“看到”。作为一个可能的答案，我们遵循一种参与式方法，并建立在线调查，要求公众定义成本结构。我们介绍了调查设计和获取的数据以及评估，该评估还区分了视角（汽车乘客与外部交通参与者）和性别。使用基于仿真的$ f $检验，我们发现两组之间存在很大的显着差异。这些差异对在与自动驾驶汽车的安全临界距离内的可靠检测有后果。我们讨论与这种方法相关的道德问题，并从心理学的角度讨论了从人机相互作用到调查出现的问题。最后，我们在AI安全领域的行业领导者对基于调查的元素在自动驾驶中的AI功能设计中的适用性进行了评论。

这项工作旨在将有效性考虑到有关是否以及如何在高风险域中构建数据驱动算法的审议。为此，我们将关键概念从有效性理论转化为预测算法。我们描述了问题制定和数据问题中的共同挑战，这些问题危害了预测算法的有效性。我们将这些问题提炼成一系列高级问题，旨在促进和记录有关预测任务和数据适用性的合法性的思考。这项贡献为共同设计有效性协议的基础与现实世界中的利益相关者合作，包括决策者，建模者和潜在影响社区的成员，以严格评估数据驱动的算法的特定设计的合理性和使用系统。