Governing Algorithmic Systems with Impact Assessments: Six Observations

Algorithmic decision-making and decision-support systems (ADS) are gaining influence over how society distributes resources, administers justice, and provides access to opportunities. Yet collectively we do not adequately study how these systems affect people or document the actual or potential harms resulting from their integration with important social functions. This is a significant challenge for computational justice efforts of measuring and governing AI systems. Impact assessments are often used as instruments to create accountability relationships and grant some measure of agency and voice to communities affected by projects with environmental, financial, and human rights ramifications. Applying these tools-through Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIA)-is a plausible way to establish accountability relationships for ADSs. At the same time, what an AIA would entail remains under-specified; they raise as many questions as they answer. Choices about the methods, scope, and purpose of AIAs structure the conditions of possibility for AI governance. In this paper, we present our research on the history of impact assessments across diverse domains, through a sociotechnical lens, to present six observations on how they co-constitute accountability. Decisions about what type of effects count as an impact; when impacts are assessed; whose interests are considered; who is invited to participate; who conducts the assessment; how assessments are made publicly available, and what the outputs of the assessment might be; all shape the forms of accountability that AIAs engender. Because AlAs are still an incipient governance strategy, approaching them as social constructions that do not require a single or universal approach offers a chance to produce interventions that emerge from careful deliberation.

[1]  Maranke Wieringa,et al.  What to account for when accounting for algorithms: a systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability , 2020, FAT*.

[2]  Emily Denton,et al.  Towards Accountability for Machine Learning Datasets: Practices from Software Engineering and Infrastructure , 2020, FAccT.

[3]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Toward inclusive tech policy design: a method for underrepresented voices to strengthen tech policy documents , 2019, Ethics and Information Technology.

[4]  Mind the gap! Comparing ex ante and ex post assessments of the costs of complying with environmental regulation , 2002 .

[5]  David P. McCaffrey,et al.  Making Bureaucracies Think: The Environmental Impact Statement Strategy of Administrative Reform. , 1986 .

[6]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Public and its Problems , 1927 .

[7]  Ghislaine M. Lawrence The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology , 1989, Medical History.

[8]  David Wright,et al.  Should privacy impact assessments be mandatory? , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[9]  Madeleine Clare Elish,et al.  Algorithmic Impact Assessments and Accountability: The Co-construction of Impacts , 2021, FAccT.

[10]  Solon Barocas,et al.  The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines , 2018 .

[11]  Malte Ziewitz,et al.  Rethinking gaming: The ethical work of optimization in web search engines , 2019, Social studies of science.

[12]  Thomas C. Beierle Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions , 2010 .

[13]  S. Jasanoff States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[14]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing , 2020, FAT*.

[15]  Archon Fung Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future , 2015 .

[16]  Andrew Smart,et al.  Participatory Problem Formulation for Fairer Machine Learning Through Community Based System Dynamics , 2020, ArXiv.

[17]  Arieh Waldman Cognitive Biases, Dark Patterns, and the 'Privacy Paradox' , 2019, Current opinion in psychology.

[18]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification , 2018, FAT.

[19]  Shakir Mohamed,et al.  Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence , 2020, Philosophy & Technology.

[20]  B. Stahl,et al.  Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy , 2020, Policy and Society.

[21]  Ronald K. Mitchell,et al.  Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts , 1997 .

[22]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Model Cards for Model Reporting , 2018, FAT.

[23]  Laura Forlano,et al.  Participation Is not a Design Fix for Machine Learning , 2020, EAAMO.

[24]  Sasha Costanza-Chock,et al.  Design Justice , 2020 .

[25]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[26]  Corinne Cath Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[27]  Michael Veale,et al.  Administration by Algorithm? Public Management Meets Public Sector Machine Learning , 2019 .

[28]  Alex Hanna,et al.  Against Scale: Provocations and Resistances to Scale Thinking , 2020, ArXiv.

[29]  Gianclaudio Malgieri,et al.  Algorithmic Impact Assessments under the GDPR: Producing Multi-layered Explanations , 2019, International Data Privacy Law.

[30]  Kush Wadhwa,et al.  Evaluating privacy impact assessments , 2013 .

[31]  M. C. Elish,et al.  Moral Crumple Zones: Cautionary Tales in Human-Robot Interaction , 2019, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society.

[32]  Ákos Róna-Tas The Off-Label Use of Consumer Credit Ratings , 2017 .

[33]  J. Fox,et al.  The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability , 2007 .

[34]  M. Lynch Social Constructivism in Science and Technology Studies , 2016 .

[35]  Bullard,et al.  Anatomy of Environmental Racism and the Environmental Justice Movement , 2020 .

[36]  Helena Webb,et al.  A governance framework for algorithmic accountability and transparency , 2019 .

[37]  Anna Lauren Hoffmann,et al.  Terms of inclusion: Data, discourse, violence , 2020, New Media Soc..

[38]  M. C. Elish,et al.  A Study of Integrating AI in Clinical Care , 2020 .

[39]  William F. West Administrative Rulemaking: An Old and Emerging Literature , 2005 .

[40]  J. V. Delong Informal Rulemaking and the Integration of Law and Policy , 1979 .

[41]  D. Shapiro The Choice of Rulemaking or Adjudication in the Development of Administrative Policy , 1965 .

[42]  J. B. Rosener,et al.  Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness? , 1978 .

[43]  Virginia E. Eubanks Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018 .

[44]  A. Waldman,et al.  Past the Privacy Paradox: The Importance of Privacy Changes as a Function of Control and Complexity , 2020, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research.

[45]  B. Latour Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[46]  Hannah Lebovits Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018, Public Integrity.

[47]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1995 .

[48]  Michael Friedewald,et al.  Integrating privacy and ethical impact assessments , 2013 .

[49]  D. Mulligan,et al.  Procurement As Policy: Administrative Process for Machine Learning , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[50]  M. Bovens Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework , 2007 .

[51]  M. Mauer Racial Impact Statements as a Means of Reducing Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities , 2007 .

[52]  A. Waldman Privacy Law's False Promise , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[53]  Peter Eckersley Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function) , 2019, SafeAI@AAAI.

[54]  N. Marres Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy , 2016 .

[55]  Michael Carl Tschantz,et al.  Discrimination in Online Advertising: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry , 2018 .

[56]  Andrew D. Selbst Disparate Impact in Big Data Policing , 2017 .

[57]  Emily Keddell,et al.  Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice , 2019, Social Sciences.