Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05292 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866908579057893376 |
|---|---|
| author | Raman, Vyoma Shen, Judy Hanwen Zhang, Andy K. Gailmard, Lindsey Bommasani, Rishi Ho, Daniel E. Wang, Angelina |
| author_facet | Raman, Vyoma Shen, Judy Hanwen Zhang, Andy K. Gailmard, Lindsey Bommasani, Rishi Ho, Daniel E. Wang, Angelina |
| contents | Despite conflicting definitions and conceptions of fairness, AI fairness researchers broadly agree that fairness is context-specific. However, when faced with general-purpose AI, which by definition serves a range of contexts, how should we think about fairness? We argue that while we cannot be prescriptive about what constitutes fair outcomes, we can specify the processes that different stakeholders should follow in service of fairness. Specifically, we consider the obligations of two major groups: system providers and system deployers. While system providers are natural candidates for regulatory attention, the current state of AI understanding offers limited insight into how upstream factors translate into downstream fairness impacts. Thus, we recommend that providers invest in evaluative research studying how model development decisions influence fairness and disclose whom they are serving their models to, or at the very least, reveal sufficient information for external researchers to conduct such research. On the other hand, system deployers are closer to real-world contexts and can leverage their proximity to end users to address fairness harms in different ways. Here, we argue they should responsibly disclose information about users and personalization and conduct rigorous evaluations across different levels of fairness. Overall, instead of focusing on enforcing fairness outcomes, we prioritize intentional information-gathering by system providers and deployers that can facilitate later context-aware action. This allows us to be specific and concrete about the processes even while the contexts remain unknown. Ultimately, this approach can sharpen how we distribute fairness responsibilities and inform more fluid, context-sensitive interventions as AI continues to advance. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2510_05292 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Disclosure and Evaluation as Fairness Interventions for General-Purpose AI Raman, Vyoma Shen, Judy Hanwen Zhang, Andy K. Gailmard, Lindsey Bommasani, Rishi Ho, Daniel E. Wang, Angelina Computers and Society Despite conflicting definitions and conceptions of fairness, AI fairness researchers broadly agree that fairness is context-specific. However, when faced with general-purpose AI, which by definition serves a range of contexts, how should we think about fairness? We argue that while we cannot be prescriptive about what constitutes fair outcomes, we can specify the processes that different stakeholders should follow in service of fairness. Specifically, we consider the obligations of two major groups: system providers and system deployers. While system providers are natural candidates for regulatory attention, the current state of AI understanding offers limited insight into how upstream factors translate into downstream fairness impacts. Thus, we recommend that providers invest in evaluative research studying how model development decisions influence fairness and disclose whom they are serving their models to, or at the very least, reveal sufficient information for external researchers to conduct such research. On the other hand, system deployers are closer to real-world contexts and can leverage their proximity to end users to address fairness harms in different ways. Here, we argue they should responsibly disclose information about users and personalization and conduct rigorous evaluations across different levels of fairness. Overall, instead of focusing on enforcing fairness outcomes, we prioritize intentional information-gathering by system providers and deployers that can facilitate later context-aware action. This allows us to be specific and concrete about the processes even while the contexts remain unknown. Ultimately, this approach can sharpen how we distribute fairness responsibilities and inform more fluid, context-sensitive interventions as AI continues to advance. |
| title | Disclosure and Evaluation as Fairness Interventions for General-Purpose AI |
| topic | Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05292 |