içgörü - Corporate ethics, technology - # Factors influencing team members' "license to critique" in AI ethics discussions

Investigating the Limits of Ethical Critique in Corporate AI Teams

Q: How can organizations create a more open and inclusive culture for raising ethical concerns about AI systems, beyond just technical fixes?

In order to create a more open and inclusive culture for raising ethical concerns about AI systems, organizations can take several steps: Encourage Psychological Safety: Organizations should foster an environment where employees feel safe to speak up without fear of retribution. This can be achieved by promoting open communication, active listening, and valuing diverse perspectives. Promote Ethical Awareness: Provide training and education on ethical considerations in AI development and deployment. This can help employees understand the importance of ethical decision-making and feel more empowered to raise concerns. Establish Clear Reporting Channels: Create clear and accessible channels for employees to report ethical concerns, such as anonymous hotlines or designated ethics committees. This ensures that concerns are heard and addressed appropriately. Reward Ethical Behavior: Recognize and reward employees who raise ethical concerns or propose solutions to ethical dilemmas. This reinforces the organization's commitment to ethical practices and encourages others to speak up. Include Ethics in Decision-Making Processes: Integrate ethical considerations into the decision-making processes for AI projects. This ensures that ethical concerns are given due consideration at every stage of development. By implementing these strategies, organizations can create a culture that values ethical discussions and encourages employees to raise concerns about AI systems beyond just technical fixes.

Q: What are the potential risks and downsides of using speculative games as a way to discuss sensitive ethical issues within corporate contexts?

While speculative games can be a valuable tool for discussing sensitive ethical issues within corporate contexts, there are potential risks and downsides to consider: Superficial Discussions: There is a risk that participants may treat the game as a purely hypothetical exercise, leading to superficial discussions that do not translate into real-world action or change. Lack of Accountability: Participants may feel less accountable for their actions and decisions within the game, leading to less serious engagement with the ethical issues at hand. Misinterpretation of Results: The outcomes of the game discussions may be misinterpreted or taken out of context, leading to misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the ethical concerns raised. Limited Impact: While games can broaden the scope of discussions, they may not directly lead to tangible changes in organizational practices or policies regarding AI ethics. Exclusion of Marginalized Voices: Certain individuals or groups within the organization may not feel comfortable or included in the game discussions, leading to a lack of diverse perspectives on ethical issues. It is important for organizations to use speculative games thoughtfully and in conjunction with other strategies to address ethical concerns, ensuring that the discussions are meaningful, inclusive, and lead to actionable outcomes.

Q: How might the dynamics observed in this study apply to other domains beyond AI ethics, where employees may feel constrained in voicing critiques of organizational practices?

The dynamics observed in this study can apply to other domains beyond AI ethics where employees may feel constrained in voicing critiques of organizational practices. Some potential applications include: Diversity and Inclusion: In discussions around diversity and inclusion, employees may feel constrained in voicing concerns about bias, discrimination, or lack of representation. Similar power dynamics and scope limitations may be at play in these discussions. Environmental Sustainability: Employees raising concerns about environmental sustainability practices within organizations may face similar challenges in terms of scope limitations, time pressures, and power differentials impacting their ability to voice critiques. Workplace Culture: Discussions about workplace culture, employee well-being, or organizational values may also be subject to similar dynamics observed in the study, such as the influence of managers, awareness of teammates' orientations, and personal attributes affecting one's ability to raise critiques. By recognizing and addressing these dynamics in various domains, organizations can create more inclusive and open environments where employees feel empowered to voice their concerns and contribute to positive change.

Temel Kavramlar

Organizational norms, notions of "scope", and power dynamics within teams constrain the ability of team members to raise ethical concerns about AI systems.

Özet

The article examines factors that influence team members' "license to critique" when discussing AI ethics within their organizations. It finds that:

Organizational norms often push against ethical critique, with participants reporting pressure to avoid being "too negative" and an expectation that concerns must be "significant enough" to merit discussion.
The notion of "scope" is used to set boundaries on what corporate teams believe they can or will take action on, limiting discussion to technical fixes for specific problems rather than broader societal impacts. This is enacted through time pressures, a focus on "solving" problems through technical means, and role divisions that compartmentalize ethical concerns.
Who is present in the discussion, including the presence of managers or awareness of teammates' critical orientation, affects participants' willingness to raise critique. Personal attributes like gender, seniority, and technical expertise also impact perceptions of who is credible to speak up.

The article also examines how a speculative game context can expand the scope of AI ethics discussions compared to typical organizational settings, but suggests this expanded scope may not directly translate to changes in actual product development or practices.

Customize Summary

Rewrite with AI

Generate Citations

Translate Source

To Another Language

Generate MindMap

from source content

Visit Source

arxiv.org

İstatistikler

"just saying no [<about a product idea, redacted>] just makes everybody frustrated"
"you've got like all these like, emojis like 'thumbs up', 'loving it', and then like the chat is blowing up with people saying how amazing [the tech] is"
"the tools internally, they're a bit more guided [saying] 'if you're interested in building a system or model, here are a bunch of questions that we want you to answer'"
"the compartmentalization of what we do with any individual horizontal capability, I think this is a huge problem with respect to ethical uses of AI"

Alıntılar

"you're free to talk about things that you think are weird or risky"
"the things that I discuss here, it's not going to impact my paycheck next month. So it's more comfortable"
"who is in the room can change the tenor of a conversation and can change the tenor of how you deliver critiques or hold back critiques"
"if an engineer seems to be saying something that I think is wrong, I don't know, he's an engineer, and he's been here 20 years, maybe I'm wrong"

Önemli Bilgiler Şuradan Elde Edildi

Power and Play

by David Gray W... : arxiv.org 03-29-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.19049.pdf

Daha Derin Sorular

How can organizations create a more open and inclusive culture for raising ethical concerns about AI systems, beyond just technical fixes?

In order to create a more open and inclusive culture for raising ethical concerns about AI systems, organizations can take several steps:

Encourage Psychological Safety: Organizations should foster an environment where employees feel safe to speak up without fear of retribution. This can be achieved by promoting open communication, active listening, and valuing diverse perspectives.

Promote Ethical Awareness: Provide training and education on ethical considerations in AI development and deployment. This can help employees understand the importance of ethical decision-making and feel more empowered to raise concerns.

Establish Clear Reporting Channels: Create clear and accessible channels for employees to report ethical concerns, such as anonymous hotlines or designated ethics committees. This ensures that concerns are heard and addressed appropriately.

Reward Ethical Behavior: Recognize and reward employees who raise ethical concerns or propose solutions to ethical dilemmas. This reinforces the organization's commitment to ethical practices and encourages others to speak up.

Include Ethics in Decision-Making Processes: Integrate ethical considerations into the decision-making processes for AI projects. This ensures that ethical concerns are given due consideration at every stage of development.

By implementing these strategies, organizations can create a culture that values ethical discussions and encourages employees to raise concerns about AI systems beyond just technical fixes.

What are the potential risks and downsides of using speculative games as a way to discuss sensitive ethical issues within corporate contexts?

While speculative games can be a valuable tool for discussing sensitive ethical issues within corporate contexts, there are potential risks and downsides to consider:

Superficial Discussions: There is a risk that participants may treat the game as a purely hypothetical exercise, leading to superficial discussions that do not translate into real-world action or change.

Lack of Accountability: Participants may feel less accountable for their actions and decisions within the game, leading to less serious engagement with the ethical issues at hand.

Misinterpretation of Results: The outcomes of the game discussions may be misinterpreted or taken out of context, leading to misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the ethical concerns raised.

Limited Impact: While games can broaden the scope of discussions, they may not directly lead to tangible changes in organizational practices or policies regarding AI ethics.

Exclusion of Marginalized Voices: Certain individuals or groups within the organization may not feel comfortable or included in the game discussions, leading to a lack of diverse perspectives on ethical issues.

It is important for organizations to use speculative games thoughtfully and in conjunction with other strategies to address ethical concerns, ensuring that the discussions are meaningful, inclusive, and lead to actionable outcomes.

How might the dynamics observed in this study apply to other domains beyond AI ethics, where employees may feel constrained in voicing critiques of organizational practices?

The dynamics observed in this study can apply to other domains beyond AI ethics where employees may feel constrained in voicing critiques of organizational practices. Some potential applications include:

Diversity and Inclusion: In discussions around diversity and inclusion, employees may feel constrained in voicing concerns about bias, discrimination, or lack of representation. Similar power dynamics and scope limitations may be at play in these discussions.

Environmental Sustainability: Employees raising concerns about environmental sustainability practices within organizations may face similar challenges in terms of scope limitations, time pressures, and power differentials impacting their ability to voice critiques.

Workplace Culture: Discussions about workplace culture, employee well-being, or organizational values may also be subject to similar dynamics observed in the study, such as the influence of managers, awareness of teammates' orientations, and personal attributes affecting one's ability to raise critiques.

By recognizing and addressing these dynamics in various domains, organizations can create more inclusive and open environments where employees feel empowered to voice their concerns and contribute to positive change.