To a ddress these gaps, prior work has sought to evaluate the cultural representations within AI generated output, b ut with few exceptions [30, 67], mostly through quantified, metricized approaches to representation such as statistical similarities and benchmark-style scoring [49, 84]. However, the use of these methods presumes that representation is an o bjective construct with an empirical, definitive ground truth that outputs can be compared against [e.g., 42, 84] [fo r a critique of ground truth, see 59]. Given limitations of these computational methods, evaluation of representation is reduced to basic recognition or factual generation of artifacts. Even when human feedback on representation is sought, it is solicited through narrow, constrained, quantitative scales from anonymized crowdworkers who often do not have th e lived experiences to evaluate nuances of cultural representation of other cultures. However, this approach to measuring representation is in contravention to decades of scholarship in the social sciences that emphasizes the subjective nature of representation, where judgments about representation in visual media are constructed in conversation with the viewer's lived experiences and the broader context within which an image is Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of thi s work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee pr ovided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page.

Prompt-based interfaces for Large Language Models (LLMs) have made prototyping and building AI-powered applications easier than ever before. However, identifying potential harms that may arise from AI applications remains a challenge, particularly during prompt-based prototyping. To address this, we present Farsight, a novel in situ interactive tool that helps people identify potential harms from the AI applications they are prototyping. Based on a user's prompt, Farsight highlights news articles about relevant AI incidents and allows users to explore and edit LLM-generated use cases, stakeholders, and harms. We report design insights from a co-design study with 10 AI prototypers and findings from a user study with 42 AI prototypers. After using Farsight, AI prototypers in our user study are better able to independently identify potential harms associated with a prompt and find our tool more useful and usable than existing resources. Their qualitative feedback also highlights that Farsight encourages them to focus on end-users and think beyond immediate harms. We discuss these findings and reflect on their implications for designing AI prototyping experiences that meaningfully engage with AI harms. Farsight is publicly accessible at: https://PAIR-code.github.io/farsight.

Despite the growing consensus that stakeholders affected by AI systems should participate in their design, enormous variation and implicit disagreements exist among current approaches. For researchers and practitioners who are interested in taking a participatory approach to AI design and development, it remains challenging to assess the extent to which any participatory approach grants substantive agency to stakeholders. This article thus aims to ground what we dub the "participatory turn" in AI design by synthesizing existing theoretical literature on participation and through empirical investigation and critique of its current practices. Specifically, we derive a conceptual framework through synthesis of literature across technology design, political theory, and the social sciences that researchers and practitioners can leverage to evaluate approaches to participation in AI design. Additionally, we articulate empirical findings concerning the current state of participatory practice in AI design based on an analysis of recently published research and semi-structured interviews with 12 AI researchers and practitioners. We use these empirical findings to understand the current state of participatory practice and subsequently provide guidance to better align participatory goals and methods in a way that accounts for practical constraints.

Recent work has proposed a power law relationship, referred to as ``scaling laws,'' between the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) models and aspects of those models' design (e.g., dataset size). In other words, as the size of a dataset (or model parameters, etc) increases, the performance of a given model trained on that dataset will correspondingly increase. However, while compelling in the aggregate, this scaling law relationship overlooks the ways that metrics used to measure performance may be precarious and contested, or may not correspond with how different groups of people may perceive the quality of models' output. In this paper, we argue that as the size of datasets used to train large AI models grows, the number of distinct communities (including demographic groups) whose data is included in a given dataset is likely to grow, each of whom may have different values. As a result, there is an increased risk that communities represented in a dataset may have values or preferences not captured by (or in the worst case, at odds with) the metrics used to evaluate model performance for scaling laws. We end the paper with implications for AI scaling laws -- that models may not, in fact, continue to improve as the datasets get larger -- at least not for all people or communities impacted by those models.

An emerging body of research indicates that ineffective cross-functional collaboration -- the interdisciplinary work done by industry practitioners across roles -- represents a major barrier to addressing issues of fairness in AI design and development. In this research, we sought to better understand practitioners' current practices and tactics to enact cross-functional collaboration for AI fairness, in order to identify opportunities to support more effective collaboration. We conducted a series of interviews and design workshops with 23 industry practitioners spanning various roles from 17 companies. We found that practitioners engaged in bridging work to overcome frictions in understanding, contextualization, and evaluation around AI fairness across roles. In addition, in organizational contexts with a lack of resources and incentives for fairness work, practitioners often piggybacked on existing requirements (e.g., for privacy assessments) and AI development norms (e.g., the use of quantitative evaluation metrics), although they worry that these tactics may be fundamentally compromised. Finally, we draw attention to the invisible labor that practitioners take on as part of this bridging and piggybacking work to enact interdisciplinary collaboration for fairness. We close by discussing opportunities for both FAccT researchers and AI practitioners to better support cross-functional collaboration for fairness in the design and development of AI systems.

Fairlearn is an open source project to help practitioners assess and improve fairness of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The associated Python library, also named fairlearn, supports evaluation of a model's output across affected populations and includes several algorithms for mitigating fairness issues. Grounded in the understanding that fairness is a sociotechnical challenge, the project integrates learning resources that aid practitioners in considering a system's broader societal context.

In recent years, the CHI community has seen significant growth in research on Human-Centered Responsible Artificial Intelligence. While different research communities may use different terminology to discuss similar topics, all of this work is ultimately aimed at developing AI that benefits humanity while being grounded in human rights and ethics, and reducing the potential harms of AI. In this special interest group, we aim to bring together researchers from academia and industry interested in these topics to map current and future research trends to advance this important area of research by fostering collaboration and sharing ideas.

There is a growing consensus in HCI and AI research that the design of AI systems needs to engage and empower stakeholders who will be affected by AI. However, the manner in which stakeholders should participate in AI design is unclear. This workshop paper aims to ground what we dub a 'participatory turn' in AI design by synthesizing existing literature on participation and through empirical analysis of its current practices via a survey of recent published research and a dozen semi-structured interviews with AI researchers and practitioners. Based on our literature synthesis and empirical research, this paper presents a conceptual framework for analyzing participatory approaches to AI design and articulates a set of empirical findings that in ensemble detail out the contemporary landscape of participatory practice in AI design. These findings can help bootstrap a more principled discussion on how PD of AI should move forward across AI, HCI, and other research communities.

If the authors of a recent Stanford report (Bommasani et al., 2021) on the opportunities and risks of "foundation models" are to be believed, these models represent a paradigm shift for AI and for the domains in which they will supposedly be used, including education. Although the name is new (and contested (Field, 2021)), the term describes existing types of algorithmic models that are "trained on broad data at scale" and "fine-tuned" (i.e., adapted) for particular downstream tasks, and is intended to encompass large language models such as BERT or GPT-3 and computer vision models such as CLIP. Such technologies have the potential for harm broadly speaking (e.g., Bender et al., 2021), but their use in the educational domain is particularly fraught, despite the potential benefits for learners claimed by the authors. In section 3.3 of the Stanford report, Malik et al. argue that achieving the goal of providing education for all learners requires more efficient computational approaches that can rapidly scale across educational domains and across educational contexts, for which they argue foundation models are uniquely well-suited. However, evidence suggests that not only are foundation models not likely to achieve the stated benefits for learners, but their use may also introduce new risks for harm.

Educational technologies, and the systems of schooling in which they are deployed, enact particular ideologies about what is important to know and how learners should learn. As artificial intelligence technologies -- in education and beyond -- have led to inequitable outcomes for marginalized communities, various approaches have been developed to evaluate and mitigate AI systems' disparate impact. However, we argue in this paper that the dominant paradigm of evaluating fairness on the basis of performance disparities in AI models is inadequate for confronting the structural inequities that educational AI systems (re)produce. We draw on a lens of structural injustice informed by critical theory and Black feminist scholarship to critically interrogate several widely-studied and widely-adopted categories of educational AI systems and demonstrate how educational AI technologies are bound up in and reproduce historical legacies of structural injustice and inequity, regardless of the parity of their models' performance. We close with alternative visions for a more equitable future for educational AI research.