We start with revisiting (and generalizing) existing notions and introducing new, more refined notions of subgroup fairness. We aim to (a) formulate different aspects of the difficulty of individuals in certain subgroups to achieve recourse, i.e. receive the desired outcome, either at the micro level, considering members of the subgroup individually, or at the macro level, considering the subgroup as a whole, and (b) introduce notions of subgroup fairness that are robust, if not totally oblivious, to the cost of achieving recourse. We accompany these notions with an efficient, model-agnostic, highly parameterizable, and explainable framework for evaluating subgroup fairness. We demonstrate the advantages, the wide applicability, and the efficiency of our approach through a thorough experimental evaluation of different benchmark datasets.

We argue that insurance can act as an analogon for the social situatedness of machine learning systems, hence allowing machine learning scholars to take insights from the rich and interdisciplinary insurance literature. Tracing the interaction of uncertainty, fairness and responsibility in insurance provides a fresh perspective on fairness in machine learning. We link insurance fairness conceptions to their machine learning relatives, and use this bridge to problematize fairness as calibration. In this process, we bring to the forefront three themes that have been largely overlooked in the machine learning literature: responsibility, performativity and tensions between aggregate and individual.

Robots operating in close proximity to humans rely heavily on human trust to successfully complete their tasks. But what are the real outcomes when this trust is violated? Self-defense law provides a framework for analyzing tangible failure scenarios that can inform the design of robots and their algorithms. Studying self-defense is particularly important for ground robots since they operate within public environments, where they can pose a legitimate threat to the safety of nearby humans. Moreover, even if ground robots can guarantee human safety, the perception of a physical threat is sufficient to justify human self-defense against robots. In this paper, we synthesize works in law, engineering, and social science to present four actionable recommendations for how the robotics community can craft robots to mitigate the likelihood of self-defense situations arising. We establish how current U.S. self-defense law can justify a human protecting themselves against a robot, discuss the current literature on human attitudes toward robots, and analyze methods that have been produced to allow robots to operate close to humans. Finally, we present hypothetical scenarios that underscore how current robot navigation methods can fail to sufficiently consider self-defense concerns and the need for the recommendations to guide improvements in the field.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to advance rapidly, it becomes increasingly important to consider AI's ethical and societal implications. In this paper, we present a bottom-up mapping of the current state of research at the intersection of Human-Centered AI, Ethical, and Responsible AI (HCER-AI) by thematically reviewing and analyzing 164 research papers from leading conferences in ethical, social, and human factors of AI: AIES, CHI, CSCW, and FAccT. The ongoing research in HCER-AI places emphasis on governance, fairness, and explainability. These conferences, however, concentrate on specific themes rather than encompassing all aspects. While AIES has fewer papers on HCER-AI, it emphasizes governance and rarely publishes papers about privacy, security, and human flourishing. FAccT publishes more on governance and lacks papers on privacy, security, and human flourishing. CHI and CSCW, as more established conferences, have a broader research portfolio. We find that the current emphasis on governance and fairness in AI research may not adequately address the potential unforeseen and unknown implications of AI. Therefore, we recommend that future research should expand its scope and diversify resources to prepare for these potential consequences. This could involve exploring additional areas such as privacy, security, human flourishing, and explainability.

Since March, Congress has held at least 10 hearings about A.I. across eight different committees or subcommittees. The Senate Judiciary Committee grilled the CEO of OpenAI, the Senate Armed Services Committee explored A.I. and defense, and the House Science Committee wanted to know about the latest A.I. innovations. In other words, it's been a bit of a mess--largely because, unlike agriculture, financial services, and other crucial areas of American life, technology doesn't have a committee dedicated solely to its regulation. Even committees like the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology or the Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law do not have exclusive jurisdiction over tech. As a result, several different committees are throwing spaghetti against the wall in a real-time demonstration that Congress is simply not structured or resourced to do its job on A.I., or the other technologies that are shaping its constituents' lives.

Federated learning (FL) has been a hot topic in recent years. Ever since it was introduced, researchers have endeavored to devise FL systems that protect privacy or ensure fair results, with most research focusing on one or the other. As two crucial ethical notions, the interactions between privacy and fairness are comparatively less studied. However, since privacy and fairness compete, considering each in isolation will inevitably come at the cost of the other. To provide a broad view of these two critical topics, we presented a detailed literature review of privacy and fairness issues, highlighting unique challenges posed by FL and solutions in federated settings. We further systematically surveyed different interactions between privacy and fairness, trying to reveal how privacy and fairness could affect each other and point out new research directions in fair and private FL.

Semantic similarity analysis and modeling is a fundamentally acclaimed task in many pioneering applications of natural language processing today. Owing to the sensation of sequential pattern recognition, many neural networks like RNNs and LSTMs have achieved satisfactory results in semantic similarity modeling. However, these solutions are considered inefficient due to their inability to process information in a non-sequential manner, thus leading to the improper extraction of context. Transformers function as the state-of-the-art architecture due to their advantages like non-sequential data processing and self-attention. In this paper, we perform semantic similarity analysis and modeling on the U.S Patent Phrase to Phrase Matching Dataset using both traditional and transformer-based techniques. We experiment upon four different variants of the Decoding Enhanced BERT - DeBERTa and enhance its performance by performing K-Fold Cross-Validation. The experimental results demonstrate our methodology's enhanced performance compared to traditional techniques, with an average Pearson correlation score of 0.79.

A novelist responds to Jeff Hewitt's "The Big Four v. ORWELL." For the first time in history, a machine is capable of crafting flash fiction stories, poems, parody Bible verses, and spoof My Little Pony episode summaries, to everyone's delight (or horror). Narrative art, once thought the sole province of humans, has been invaded by large language models. Hollywood writers have told me they're terrified that studios will fire them all and fill writers' rooms with robots in a few years. Before we've even had a chance to absorb the fact that the Turing test (used to determine if an artificial intelligence can pass as human) has been demolished, it seems we writers are being handed pink slips.

This story is part of Future Tense Fiction, a monthly series of short stories from Future Tense and Arizona State University's Center for Science and the Imagination about how technology and science will change our lives. THE COURT: Please be seated. Let's try to keep the temperature down in here. We don't need a repeat of yesterday. It'll just be Mr. Blatz and myself today. Sorry, it's hard to tell with … are you with us? ORWELL: Omni-dimensional Recursively Written Entity for Language Learning present and ready, Your Honor. THE COURT: You can just say ORWELL. Are we ready to proceed? LIU: Your Honor, we'd like to call the Defendant to the stand. Mr. Blatz will handle examination. THE COURT: We have the wiring sorted out? Please refrain from using the monitor on the Defendant's table until you're off the stand.

We evaluated the capability of generative pre-trained transformers~(GPT-4) in analysis of textual data in tasks that require highly specialized domain expertise. Specifically, we focused on the task of analyzing court opinions to interpret legal concepts. We found that GPT-4, prompted with annotation guidelines, performs on par with well-trained law student annotators. We observed that, with a relatively minor decrease in performance, GPT-4 can perform batch predictions leading to significant cost reductions. However, employing chain-of-thought prompting did not lead to noticeably improved performance on this task. Further, we demonstrated how to analyze GPT-4's predictions to identify and mitigate deficiencies in annotation guidelines, and subsequently improve the performance of the model. Finally, we observed that the model is quite brittle, as small formatting related changes in the prompt had a high impact on the predictions. These findings can be leveraged by researchers and practitioners who engage in semantic/pragmatic annotations of texts in the context of the tasks requiring highly specialized domain expertise.