The CFPB wants workers at big technology firms to report practices that could harm consumers, as part of the agency's push to oversee the use of artificial intelligence in lending and other financial markets. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced Wednesday that it has redesigned its whistleblower webpage with tech workers in mind, and plans to make it easier for tech workers to send encrypted emails to the bureau. The bureau is particularly interested in how mortgage lending algorithms are designed and used, amid concerns that they could further entrench discrimination, Erie Meyer, the CFPB's chief technologist, said in a ...

In recent years, person detection and human pose estimation have made great strides, helped by large-scale labeled datasets. However, these datasets had no guarantees or analysis of human activities, poses, or context diversity. Additionally, privacy, legal, safety, and ethical concerns may limit the ability to collect more human data. An emerging alternative to real-world data that alleviates some of these issues is synthetic data. However, creation of synthetic data generators is incredibly challenging and prevents researchers from exploring their usefulness. Therefore, we release a human-centric synthetic data generator PeopleSansPeople which contains simulation-ready 3D human assets, a parameterized lighting and camera system, and generates 2D and 3D bounding box, instance and semantic segmentation, and COCO pose labels. Using PeopleSansPeople, we performed benchmark synthetic data training using a Detectron2 Keypoint R-CNN variant [1]. We found that pre-training a network using synthetic data and fine-tuning on target real-world data (few-shot transfer to limited subsets of COCO-person train [2]) resulted in a keypoint AP of $60.37 \pm 0.48$ (COCO test-dev2017) outperforming models trained with the same real data alone (keypoint AP of $55.80$) and pre-trained with ImageNet (keypoint AP of $57.50$). This freely-available data generator should enable a wide range of research into the emerging field of simulation to real transfer learning in the critical area of human-centric computer vision.

Prompting inputs with natural language task descriptions has emerged as a popular mechanism to elicit reasonably accurate outputs from large-scale generative language models with little to no in-context supervision. This also helps gain insight into how well language models capture the semantics of a wide range of downstream tasks purely from self-supervised pre-training on massive corpora of unlabeled text. Such models have naturally also been exposed to a lot of undesirable content like racist and sexist language and there is limited work on awareness of models along these dimensions. In this paper, we define and comprehensively evaluate how well such language models capture the semantics of four tasks for bias: diagnosis, identification, extraction and rephrasing. We define three broad classes of task descriptions for these tasks: statement, question, and completion, with numerous lexical variants within each class. We study the efficacy of prompting for each task using these classes and the null task description across several decoding methods and few-shot examples. Our analyses indicate that language models are capable of performing these tasks to widely varying degrees across different bias dimensions, such as gender and political affiliation. We believe our work is an important step towards unbiased language models by quantifying the limits of current self-supervision objectives at accomplishing such sociologically challenging tasks.

The DNA sequencing and DNA-RNA binding proteins is critical for identifying and modeling disease spread and building regulatory processes with deep learning algorithms. Implementation of deep convolutional neural networks with algorithms has achieved breakthrough performance on DNA sequencing by analyzing the protein binding microarrays and RNAcompete assays with distributed training on GPUs.

Algorithms play a growing role in our lives, even as their flaws are becoming more apparent: a Michigan man wrongly accused of fraud had to file for bankruptcy; automated screening tools disproportionately harm people of color who want to buy a home or rent an apartment; Black Facebook users were subjected to more abuse than white users. Other automated systems have improperly rated teachers, graded students, and flagged people with dark skin more often for cheating on tests. Now, efforts are underway to better understand how AI works and hold users accountable. New York's City Council last month adopted a law requiring audits of algorithms used by employers in hiring or promotion. The law, the first of its kind in the nation, requires employers to bring in outsiders to assess whether an algorithm exhibits bias based on sex, race, or ethnicity.

Three provincial privacy watchdogs have ordered facial recognition company Clearview AI to stop collecting, using and disclosing images of people without consent. The privacy authorities of British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec are also requiring the U.S. firm to delete images and biometric data collected without permission from individuals. The binding orders made public Tuesday follow a joint investigation by the three provincial authorities with the office of federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien. The watchdogs found in February that Clearview AI's facial recognition technology resulted in mass surveillance of Canadians and violated federal and provincial laws governing personal information. They said the New York-based company's scraping of billions of images of people from across the internet to help police forces, financial institutions and other clients identify people was a clear breach of Canadians' privacy rights.

The ever-increasing amount of user-generated content online has led, in recent years, to an expansion in research and investment in automated content analysis tools. Scrutiny of automated content analysis has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, as social networking services have placed a greater reliance on these tools due to concerns about health risks to their moderation staff from in-person work. At the same time, there are important policy debates around the world about how to improve content moderation while protecting free expression and privacy. In order to advance these debates, we need to understand the potential role of automated content analysis tools. This paper explains the capabilities and limitations of tools for analyzing online multimedia content and highlights the potential risks of using these tools at scale without accounting for their limitations. It focuses on two main categories of tools: matching models and computer prediction models. Matching models include cryptographic and perceptual hashing, which compare user-generated content with existing and known content. Predictive models (including computer vision and computer audition) are machine learning techniques that aim to identify characteristics of new or previously unknown content.

To treat others as one would wish to be treated is a common formulation of the golden rule (GR). Yet, despite its prevalence as an axiom throughout history, no transfer of this moral philosophy into computational systems exists. In this paper we consider how to algorithmically operationalise this rule so that it may be used to measure sentences such as the boy harmed the girl, and categorise them as fair or unfair. For the purposes of the paper, we define a fair act as one that one would be accepting of if it were done to oneself. A review and reply to criticisms of the GR is made. We share the code for the digitisation of the GR, and test it with a list of sentences. Implementing it within two language models, the USE, and ALBERT, we find F1 scores of 78.0, 85.0, respectively. A suggestion of how the technology may be implemented to avoid unfair biases in word embeddings is made - given that individuals would typically not wish to be on the receiving end of an unfair act, such as racism, irrespective of whether the corpus being used deems such discrimination as praiseworthy.

Given the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods across all aspects of environmental sciences, it is imperative that we initiate a discussion about the ethical and responsible use of AI. In fact, much can be learned from other domains where AI was introduced, often with the best of intentions, yet often led to unintended societal consequences, such as hard coding racial bias in the criminal justice system or increasing economic inequality through the financial system. A common misconception is that the environmental sciences are immune to such unintended consequences when AI is being used, as most data come from observations, and AI algorithms are based on mathematical formulas, which are often seen as objective. In this article, we argue the opposite can be the case. Using specific examples, we demonstrate many ways in which the use of AI can introduce similar consequences in the environmental sciences. This article will stimulate discussion and research efforts in this direction. As a community, we should avoid repeating any foreseeable mistakes made in other domains through the introduction of AI. In fact, with proper precautions, AI can be a great tool to help {\it reduce} climate and environmental injustice. We primarily focus on weather and climate examples but the conclusions apply broadly across the environmental sciences.

Cultural code-switching concerns how we adjust our overall behaviours, manners of speaking, and appearance in response to a perceived change in our social environment. We defend the need to investigate cultural code-switching capacities in artificial intelligence systems. We explore a series of ethical and epistemic issues that arise when bringing cultural code-switching to bear on artificial intelligence. Building upon Dotson's (2014) analysis of testimonial smothering, we discuss how emerging technologies in AI can give rise to epistemic oppression, and specifically, a form of self-silencing that we call 'cultural smothering'. By leaving the socio-dynamic features of cultural code-switching unaddressed, AI systems risk negatively impacting already-marginalised social groups by widening opportunity gaps and further entrenching social inequalities.