Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Provocation: Who benefits from "inclusion" in Generative AI?

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dominant structures of community participation in generative AI fail to specify what marginalized participants actually gain, and a speculative case study shows the promised benefits are blocked by paywalls, access gaps, and…

desk verdict A well-scoped provocation that reframes participatory AI evaluation around benefit realization; the descriptive claim about 'dominant structures' is thinner than the argument wants, but the paper is honest about it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09102 v2 pith:HAZE4IAL submitted 2024-11-14 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Samantha Dalal , Siobhan Mackenzie Hall , Nari Johnson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords participatoryAIgenerativerepresentationalharmsmarginalizedcommunitiescommunityparticipationdatalaborinclusionevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Participatory AI is now a standard response to generative AI's representational harms: companies and researchers invite members of marginalized communities to label data, evaluate outputs, and share cultural expertise. This paper argues that the dominant form of this participation—one-time compensated consultation with no ownership over the resulting data or models—is not explicit enough about what those participants actually gain or risk. Using a speculative case study of a Vietnamese cultural preservation activist invited to label images of cultural artifacts for a text-to-image company, the authors trace the concrete barriers that block the promised benefits: paywalls, connectivity and interface gaps, and the political-economic conditions that keep improved representation from translating into material change. The paper concludes that the claim that community members will be better off from participation is empty under current structures, and urges AI developers to make the contingencies of benefit explicit and to restructure participation toward meaningful community ownership and power.

What carries the argument

The paper's central device is a speculative case study of 'Thuy,' a Vietnamese cultural preservation activist invited to label photographs of Vietnamese cultural artifacts for a text-to-image company's data enrichment initiative. The scenario is an explicit abstraction of what the authors observe as the dominant participation structure—one-time compensation, no ownership or control over data or models—and it is used to trace the flow of benefits and harms across three stakeholder groups: community members, social actors such as marketing agencies and publishers, and technology institutions. The case study functions as the argument's test bed, converting a general worry about extractive participation into a concrete accounting of where promised benefits stop and where harms begin.

What would settle it

Check the claim against real participatory engagements: for a documented text-to-image data enrichment program that recruited members of a marginalized community, determine whether participants received free or affordable access to the resulting model, ongoing royalties or ownership rights, and protections against impersonation or misuse. If such engagements consistently provide these benefits, the paper's claim that benefits are empty under dominant structures is weakened; if they do not, it is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dominant structures of community participation in AI development and evaluation are not explicit enough about the benefits and harms that members of socially marginalized groups may experience as a result of their participation. The paper contends that participation is typically motivated by a trickle-down logic—improved model representations of a culture will benefit its members—but this logic fails when participants cannot access the resulting services, when representation does not alter material conditions, and when heightened visibility creates new harms such as impersonation or the displacement of community labor. Because these barriers are structural rather than incidental, the intended benefits remain contingent on reforms the standard consultation model does not address; hence the authors call for transparency about these contingencies and for restructuring participation around ownership, control, and power for participants.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's analysis rests on the assumption that the speculative case study of 'Thuy' faithfully abstracts the dominant structures of participatory AI in industry and academia today, based on the authors' collective experiences rather than systematic empirical evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, one-off compensated consultation is an inadequate model for participatory AI; engagements must specify and secure participant benefits before and after data collection.
  • Researchers and companies should tell participants which benefits they can and cannot realize, and under what conditions, rather than asserting that improved representation will help.
  • Alternatives such as community-owned models, usage licenses that redistribute benefits, and data-leverage bargaining become necessary components of ethical participation.
  • Participatory evaluation should include explicit discussion of potential harms and leave room for participants to refuse or withdraw.
  • Regulatory requirements that mandate consultation with impacted groups will not, by themselves, protect those groups unless the consultation structures grant ownership and control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's logic implies a measurable criterion for whether a participatory engagement is extractive: participants should be able to use the outputs, share in their value, and retain rights over their contributions, a criterion that could be operationalized in future audits.
  • The speculative case study generates testable predictions—for example, that participants in current text-to-image data enrichment programs rarely receive free model access, ongoing royalties, or likeness protections—which could be checked through interviews or contract analysis.
  • By framing inclusion as a question of who benefits, the paper connects participatory AI to the wider discourse on data labor and platform exploitation, suggesting that 'inclusion' without redistribution may function as a source of legitimacy for AI developers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper, framed as a provocation, argues that dominant structures of community participation in generative AI (GenAI) development and evaluation are not explicit enough about the benefits and harms that members of socially marginalized groups may experience as a result of their participation. To support this argument, the authors present a speculative case study of 'Thuy,' a Vietnamese cultural preservation activist invited to label cultural artifact images for a text-to-image company. They trace how potential benefits (improved representation, quality-of-service) may be blocked by paywalls, access barriers, and socio-political conditions, and how harms (misuse, displacement of cultural consultants) can arise. The paper concludes with implications for researchers and an appendix outlining alternative models of participation, ownership, and compensation. The authors acknowledge in their Limitations section that the analysis is based on a speculative context informed by their own experiences rather than on systematic empirical evidence.

Significance. If taken as a call to interrogate participatory AI practices, the paper is timely and valuable: it names concrete barriers to benefit realization and assembles relevant scholarship from media studies, data sovereignty, and responsible licensing. Its transparent use of a speculative case and its explicit limitations are strengths, and the appendix offers a useful set of existing alternatives (e.g., Te Hiku Media, DAIR, data leverage) that researchers can build on. The paper's weakness is that its central descriptive claim — that current practices are 'not explicit enough' — is supported by anecdote and inference rather than systematic evidence. Nonetheless, as a provocation, the paper successfully opens a space for further empirical investigation.

major comments (2)
  1. ['Speculative Case Study' and 'Implications'] The central claim has two premises: (1) benefits to marginalized participants are contingent and may not materialize, and (2) developers and researchers do not explicitly communicate or interrogate these contingencies. The speculative case study convincingly illustrates premise (1) by detailing paywalls, access barriers, and political-economy constraints, but it does not establish premise (2). The scenario simply states that 'the company has not explored paths for participant ownership or control over data or AI models' and later asserts that this model 'illustrates the reality of how technology institutions and academic researchers often engage socially marginalized communities in AI development today' (Implications). The cited sources [17,27,45] support the prevalence of one-time consultative participation, but they do not directly document a systematic lack of explicitness about benefits and harms. To make the provocation load-bearing, the paper should either soften the claim to 'may not be explicit enough' or 'we should investigate whether,' or provide empirical evidence of actual transparency practices in participatory GenAI engagements.
  2. [Section 2 (Limitations)] The Limitations section honestly acknowledges that the case study is speculative and based on the authors' collective experiences, and that future work should analyze real-world examples. However, the 'Implications' section makes a stronger generalizing move, claiming that the one-time consultation model 'illustrates the reality' of current engagement. This gap between the acknowledged limitation and the assertion in Implications is a load-bearing tension. The paper would be strengthened by explicitly qualifying the generalizing claim as a hypothesis or a call for empirical validation, rather than presenting it as an established finding.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 'Harms marginalized groups can experience'] There is a missing space in the sentence 'of her communityunless social, political, and economic conditions all align'; it should read 'of her community unless.'
  2. [Figure 1] The font size in the figure's dependency boxes and arrows is small; recommend increasing readability for print and reproduction.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'non-dominant values' could be clarified with a brief definition or example, as it is central to the motivation.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix does a good job of listing alternative models, but the transition from the main text to the appendix could be smoother; a forward reference in the 'Implications' section already exists, which is helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly scoped provocation whose claims do not reduce to their inputs or to self-citation.

full rationale

This paper makes no formal derivation, fits no parameters, and generates no quantitative prediction. Its central claim that dominant participatory structures are insufficiently explicit about participant benefits and harms is advanced as an argumentative provocation supported by a deliberately labeled speculative case study, external literature, and the authors' stated collective experiences. The speculative scenario is not presented as empirical evidence, and the Limitations section explicitly acknowledges that the analysis is centered on imagined actors and informed by positionality. The only apparent self-citation is reference [4], which includes co-author Siobhan Mackenzie Hall; it is used as an example of representational harm and of a community-driven dataset initiative, not as load-bearing authority for the paper's central claim. No equation is equated with an input by construction, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The evidentiary weakness identified by the reader is a limitation in empirical grounding, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

There are no free parameters because the paper is not quantitative. The argument rests on background assumptions about the prevalence of extractive participatory structures and about the limited power of representation alone. The only invented entity is the speculative protagonist Thuy, which the authors transparently label as imagined.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Members of socially marginalized groups disproportionately experience representational harms from generative AI systems.
    Stated in the opening paragraph with citations [1-7]; this motivates the entire inquiry but is not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The dominant structure of participatory engagement is one-time consultation, providing data or feedback in exchange for one-time compensation, without participant ownership or ongoing benefit.
    The paper models this in the speculative case study and asserts in Implications that it reflects today's practice, citing [17,27,45] and the authors' experiences. It is a load-bearing premise for the benefit-gap argument.
  • domain assumption Improved representation in media does not, by itself, change material circumstances for marginalized communities.
    Invoked in the section on indirect benefits, supported by media studies references [33,34,35,36]. Crucial for concluding that trickle-down benefits are contingent.
  • ad hoc to paper The speculative case study is a faithful abstraction of the themes observed across the authors' collective experiences in AI research.
    This assumption converts a fictional narrative into evidence about real-world 'dominant structures'. The paper acknowledges it in Limitations but presents the abstraction as representative.
invented entities (1)
  • Thuy, a Vietnamese cultural preservation activist
    purpose: Protagonist of the speculative case study; used to trace how benefits and harms flow to a participant in a T2I data enrichment initiative.
    Thuy is a hypothetical construct introduced to ground the provocation. No empirical data about this person or the specific Vietnamese engagement is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Provocation: Who benefits from "inclusion" in Generative AI?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HAZE4IAL

@misc{pith2026241109102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Provocation: Who benefits from "inclusion" in Generative AI?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HAZE4IAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09102}
}
read the original abstract

The demands for accurate and representative generative AI systems means there is an increased demand on participatory evaluation structures. While these participatory structures are paramount to to ensure non-dominant values, knowledge and material culture are also reflected in AI models and the media they generate, we argue that dominant structures of community participation in AI development and evaluation are not explicit enough about the benefits and harms that members of socially marginalized groups may experience as a result of their participation. Without explicit interrogation of these benefits by AI developers, as a community we may remain blind to the immensity of systemic change that is needed as well. To support this provocation, we present a speculative case study, developed from our own collective experiences as AI researchers. We use this speculative context to itemize the barriers that need to be overcome in order for the proposed benefits to marginalized communities to be realized, and harms mitigated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We map the dependencies that often exist between key stakeholder groups: (1) members of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Harm is not Universal: Community-Specific Toxicity Detection is Urgently Needed

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SoTA T2I toxicity detectors miss ~35% of disability-community harms; zero-shot CTD fails below random, while ICL/VQA/LoRA improve but stay well below general TD performance.

  2. Advancing Data Equity: Practitioner Responsibility and Accountability in NLP Data Practices

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    U.S.-based NLP practitioners report limited hands-on experience with bias mitigation and low familiarity with the U.S. AI Bill of Rights, alongside strong support for governance intervention.

  3. The Human Labour of Data Work: Capturing Cultural Diversity through World Wide Dishes

    cs.CY 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A design retrospective of World Wide Dishes identifies three dimensions of community ambassador labor, trust building, accessibility, and cultural contextualization, as essential to participatory dataset creation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Easily accessible text-to-image generation amplifies demographic stereotypes at large scale

    Federico Bianchi, Pratyusha Kalluri, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Myra Cheng, Debora Nozza, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Dan Jurafsky, James Zou, and Aylin Caliskan. Easily accessible text-to-image generation amplifies demographic stereotypes at large scale. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’23, page 14...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Bell, Candace Ross, Adina Williams, Michal Drozdzal, and Adriana Romero Soriano

    Melissa Hall, Samuel J. Bell, Candace Ross, Adina Williams, Michal Drozdzal, and Adriana Romero Soriano. Towards geographic inclusion in the evaluation of text-to-image models. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 585–601, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Dosa: A dataset of social artifacts from different indian geographical subcultures, 2024

    Agrima Seth, Sanchit Ahuja, Kalika Bali, and Sunayana Sitaram. Dosa: A dataset of social artifacts from different indian geographical subcultures, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    You are what you eat? feeding foundation models a regionally diverse food dataset of world wide dishes

    Jabez Magomere, Shu Ishida, Tejumade Afonja, Aya Salama, Daniel Kochin, Foutse Yuehgoh, Imane Hamzaoui, Raesetje Sefala, Aisha Alaagib, Elizaveta Semenova, Lauren Crais, and Siobhan Mackenzie Hall. You are what you eat? feeding foundation models a regionally diverse food dataset of world wide dishes. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    they only care to show us the wheelchair

    Kelly Avery Mack, Rida Qadri, Remi Denton, Shaun K. Kane, and Cynthia L. Bennett. “they only care to show us the wheelchair”: disability representation in text-to-image ai models. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Taxonomizing and measuring representational harms: A look at image tagging, 2023

    Jared Katzman, Angelina Wang, Morgan Scheuerman, Su Lin Blodgett, Kristen Laird, Hanna Wallach, and Solon Barocas. Taxonomizing and measuring representational harms: A look at image tagging, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    The problem with bias: From allocative to representational harms in machine learning

    Solon Barocas, Kate Crawford, Aaron Shapiro, and Hanna Wallach. The problem with bias: From allocative to representational harms in machine learning. In SIGCIS conference paper, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    The dark side of dataset scaling: Evaluating racial classification in multimodal models

    Abeba Birhane, Sepehr Dehdashtian, Vinay Prabhu, and Vishnu Boddeti. The dark side of dataset scaling: Evaluating racial classification in multimodal models. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 1229–1244, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    The values encoded in machine learning research, 2022

    Abeba Birhane, Pratyusha Kalluri, Dallas Card, William Agnew, Ravit Dotan, and Michelle Bao. The values encoded in machine learning research, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Who’s in and who’s out? a case study of multimodal clip-filtering in datacomp, 2024

    Rachel Hong, William Agnew, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Jamie Morgenstern. Who’s in and who’s out? a case study of multimodal clip-filtering in datacomp, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Does object recognition work for everyone?, 2019

    Terrance DeVries, Ishan Misra, Changhan Wang, and Laurens van der Maaten. Does object recognition work for everyone?, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Assessing cross-cultural alignment between ChatGPT and human societies: An empirical study

    Yong Cao, Li Zhou, Seolhwa Lee, Laura Cabello, Min Chen, and Daniel Hershcovich. Assessing cross-cultural alignment between ChatGPT and human societies: An empirical study. In Sunipa Dev, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, David Adelani, Dirk Hovy, and Luciana Benotti, editors, Proceedin...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Roberts, and Mary L

    Alice Qian Zhang, Ryland Shaw, Jacy Reese Anthis, Ashlee Milton, Emily Tseng, Jina Suh, Lama Ahmad, Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, Julian Posada, Benjamin Shestakofsky, Sarah T. Roberts, and Mary L. Gray. The human factor in ai red teaming: Perspectives from social and collaborative ...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Getting ourselves together: Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden

    Jennifer Pierre, Roderic Crooks, Morgan Currie, Britt Paris, and Irene Pasquetto. Getting ourselves together: Data-centered participatory design research & epistemic burden. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–11, Yokohama J...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Towards ai accountability infrastructure: Gaps and opportunities in ai audit tooling, March 2024

    Victor Ojewale, Ryan Steed, Briana Vecchione, Abeba Birhane, and Inioluwa Deborah Raji. Towards ai accountability infrastructure: Gaps and opportunities in ai audit tooling, March 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Power to the people? opportunities and challenges for participatory ai

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. Power to the people? opportunities and challenges for participatory ai. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mecha...

    2022

  9. [17]

    The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice, 2023

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Innovating like an optimist, preparing like a pessimist: Ethical speculation and the legal imagination

    Casey Fiesler. Innovating like an optimist, preparing like a pessimist: Ethical speculation and the legal imagination. Colo. Tech. LJ, 19:1, 2021. 5

    2021

  11. [19]

    Poetics of future work: Blending speculative design with artistic methodology

    Nina Bozic Yams and Álvaro Aranda Muñoz. Poetics of future work: Blending speculative design with artistic methodology. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’21, New York, NY , USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

  12. [20]

    The stoop: speculation on positive futures of black digital spaces

    Shamika Klassen and Casey Fiesler. The stoop: speculation on positive futures of black digital spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(GROUP):1–24, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Explaining clip’s performance disparities on data from blind/low vision users, 2024

    Daniela Massiceti, Camilla Longden, Agnieszka Słowik, Samuel Wills, Martin Grayson, and Cecily Morrison. Explaining clip’s performance disparities on data from blind/low vision users, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Unified concept editing in diffusion models, 2023

    Rohit Gandikota, Hadas Orgad, Yonatan Belinkov, Joanna Materzy´nska, and David Bau. Unified concept editing in diffusion models, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Social biases through the text-to-image generation lens

    Ranjita Naik and Besmira Nushi. Social biases through the text-to-image generation lens. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’23, page 786–808, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  16. [24]

    The bias amplification paradox in text-to-image generation, 2023

    Preethi Seshadri, Sameer Singh, and Yanai Elazar. The bias amplification paradox in text-to-image generation, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Majority world: Challenging the west’s rhetoric of democracy

    Shahidul Alam. Majority world: Challenging the west’s rhetoric of democracy. Amerasia Journal, 34:87–98, 01 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction, 2023

    Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Rostamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N’Mah Yilla, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smart, Emilio Garcia, and Gurleen Virk. Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Participation in the age of foundation models

    Harini Suresh, Emily Tseng, Meg Young, Mary Gray, Emma Pierson, and Karen Levy. Participation in the age of foundation models. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 1609–1621, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Associat...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Guidelines supported evaluation of user interfaces with generative ai

    Aleksi Väisänen. Guidelines supported evaluation of user interfaces with generative ai. 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fiannaca, Meredith Ringel Morris, Shaun K

    Maitraye Das, Alexander J. Fiannaca, Meredith Ringel Morris, Shaun K. Kane, and Cynthia L. Bennett. From provenance to aberrations: Image creator and screen reader user perspectives on alt text for ai- generated images. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factor...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Generative ai and the politics of visibility

    Tarleton Gillespie. Generative ai and the politics of visibility. Big Data & Society , 11(2):20539517241252131, June 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism

    Safiya Umoja Noble. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press, New York, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification

    Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, pages 77–91. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Subject (ed) to recognition

    Herman Gray. Subject (ed) to recognition. American Quarterly, 65(4):771–798, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Kristen J. Warner. In the time of plastic representation. Film Quarterly, 71(2):32–37, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Beards, scarves, halal meat, terrorists, forced marriage’: television industries and the production of ‘race

    Anamik Saha. Beards, scarves, halal meat, terrorists, forced marriage’: television industries and the production of ‘race. Media, Culture & Society, 34(4):424–438, 2012

    2012

  28. [36]

    Queer technologies: Affordances, affect, ambivalence, 2016

    Adrienne Shaw and Katherine Sender. Queer technologies: Affordances, affect, ambivalence, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Atli Sigurgeirsson and Eddie L. Ungless. Just because we camp, doesn’t mean we should: The ethics of modelling queer voices, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ai threatens to push human fashion models out of the picture, January 2024

    Riddhi Setty. Ai threatens to push human fashion models out of the picture, January 2024. Accessed: 2024-09-10

    2024

  31. [39]

    Stevie Bergman, Jennifer Chien, Mark Díaz, Seliem El-Sayed, Jaylen Pittman, Shakir Mohamed, and Kevin R

    William Agnew, A. Stevie Bergman, Jennifer Chien, Mark Díaz, Seliem El-Sayed, Jaylen Pittman, Shakir Mohamed, and Kevin R. McKee. The illusion of artificial inclusion. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, volume 35 of CHI ’24, page 1–12. ...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Real risks of fake data: Synthetic data, diversity-washing and consent circumvention

    Cedric Deslandes Whitney and Justin Norman. Real risks of fake data: Synthetic data, diversity-washing and consent circumvention. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’24, page 1733–1744, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Assoc...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Generative ai and deepfakes: a human rights approach to tackling harmful content

    Felipe Romero Moreno. Generative ai and deepfakes: a human rights approach to tackling harmful content. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, pages 1–30, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    The limits of zero tolerance policies for animated pornographic media

    Aurélie Petit. The limits of zero tolerance policies for animated pornographic media. Porn Studies, 2024. Special Issue ‘Artificial Intelligence, Pornography, and Sex Work’ (forthcoming). 6

    2024

  35. [43]

    Brown, Daniel Wilson, Kiri West, Kirita-Rose Escott, Kiya Basabas, Ben Ritchie, Danielle Lucas, Ivy Taia, Natalie Kusabs, and Te Taka Keegan

    Paul T. Brown, Daniel Wilson, Kiri West, Kirita-Rose Escott, Kiya Basabas, Ben Ritchie, Danielle Lucas, Ivy Taia, Natalie Kusabs, and Te Taka Keegan. M¯aori algorithmic sovereignty: idea, principles, and use, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Licensing african datasets, September 2024

    The Data Science Law Lab. Licensing african datasets, September 2024. Accessed: 2024-09-10

    2024

  37. [45]

    Participation versus scale: Tensions in the practical demands on participatory ai

    Meg Young, Upol Ehsan, Ranjit Singh, Emnet Tafesse, Michele Gilman, Christina Harrington, and Jacob Metcalf. Participation versus scale: Tensions in the practical demands on participatory ai. First Monday, 29(4), Apr. 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Policy interventions and regulations on generative artificial intelligence: Key gaps and core challenges

    Shiming Hu and Yifan Li. Policy interventions and regulations on generative artificial intelligence: Key gaps and core challenges. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, dg.o ’24, page 1034–1036, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Ass...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Regulating chatgpt and other large generative ai models

    Philipp Hacker, Andreas Engel, and Marco Mauer. Regulating chatgpt and other large generative ai models. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’23, page 1112–1123, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  40. [48]

    Does information really want to be free? indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness

    Kimberly A Christen. Does information really want to be free? indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness. International Journal of Communication, 6:24, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Data leverage: A framework for empowering the public in its relationship with technology companies

    Nicholas Vincent, Hanlin Li, Nicole Tilly, Stevie Chancellor, and Brent Hecht. Data leverage: A framework for empowering the public in its relationship with technology companies. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 215...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Aya dataset: An open-access collection for multilingual instruction tuning

    Shivalika Singh, Freddie Vargus, Daniel Dsouza, Börje F Karlsson, Abinaya Mahendiran, Wei-Yin Ko, Herumb Shandilya, Jay Patel, Deividas Mataciunas, Laura OMahony, et al. Aya dataset: An open-access collection for multilingual instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06619, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Participatory research for low-resourced machine translation: A case study in african languages, 2020

    Wilhelmina Nekoto, Vukosi Marivate, Tshinondiwa Matsila, Timi Fasubaa, Tajudeen Kolawole, Taiwo Fagbohungbe, Solomon Oluwole Akinola, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Salomon Kabongo, Sa- lomey Osei, Sackey Freshia, Rubungo Andre Niyongabo, Ricky Macharm, Perez Ogayo, Orevaoghene ...

    2020

  44. [52]

    Cvqa: Culturally-diverse multilingual visual question answering benchmark, 2024

    David Romero, Chenyang Lyu, Haryo Akbarianto Wibowo, Teresa Lynn, Injy Hamed, Aditya Nanda Kishore, Aishik Mandal, Alina Dragonetti, Artem Abzaliev, Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Bontu Fufa Balcha, Chenxi Whitehouse, Christian Salamea, Dan John Velasco, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, David L...

    2024

  45. [53]

    The zeno’s paradox of ‘low-resource’ languages

    Hellina Hailu Nigatu, Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Benjamin Rosman, Thamar Solorio, and Monojit Choudhury. The zeno’s paradox of ‘low-resource’ languages. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Bonaventure F. P. Dossou, Jessica Ojo, Jenalea Rajab, Fadel Thior, Eric Peter Wairagala, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Pelonomi Moiloa, Jade Abbott, Vukosi Marivate, and Benjamin Rosman. Inkubalm: A small language model for low-resource african languages, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    A new vision of artificial intelligence for the people, 2022

    Karen Hao. A new vision of artificial intelligence for the people, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Combating harmful hype in natural language processing, 2023

    Asmelash Teka Hadgu and Paul Azunre and Timnit Gebru. Combating harmful hype in natural language processing, 2023. Accessed: 2024-09-10. 7

    2023

  49. [57]

    Behavioral use licensing for responsible ai

    Danish Contractor, Daniel McDuff, Julia Katherine Haines, Jenny Lee, Christopher Hines, Brent Hecht, Nicholas Vincent, and Hanlin Li. Behavioral use licensing for responsible ai. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’22, page 778–788. ACM...

    2022

  50. [58]

    Feder Cooper, and Danish Contractor

    Daniel McDuff, Tim Korjakow, Scott Cambo, Jesse Josua Benjamin, Jenny Lee, Yacine Jernite, Car- los Muñoz Ferrandis, Aaron Gokaslan, Alek Tarkowski, Joseph Lindley, A. Feder Cooper, and Danish Contractor. On the standardization of behavioral use clauses and their adoption for ...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Licensing african datasets, 2024

    C Okorie and M Omino. Licensing african datasets, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Computational copyright: Towards a royalty model for music generative ai, 2024

    Junwei Deng, Shiyuan Zhang, and Jiaqi Ma. Computational copyright: Towards a royalty model for music generative ai, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Baumer and M

    Eric P.S. Baumer and M. Six Silberman. When the implication is not to design (technology). InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11, page 2271–2274, New York, NY , USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery

    2011

  54. [62]

    Cracks in the success narrative: Rethinking failure in design research through a retrospective trioethnography

    Noura Howell, Audrey Desjardins, and Sarah Fox. Cracks in the success narrative: Rethinking failure in design research through a retrospective trioethnography. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 28(6), November 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    Assem- bling accountability: algorithmic impact assessment for the public interest, 2021

    Emanuel Moss, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Ranjit Singh, Madeleine Clare Elish, and Jacob Metcalf. Assem- bling accountability: algorithmic impact assessment for the public interest, 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    Hong, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein

    Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Hong Shen, Jisoo Geum, Nev Jones, Jason I. Hong, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. Understanding frontline workers’ and unhoused individuals’ perspectives on ai used in homeless services. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys...

    2023

  57. [65]

    Building, shifting, & employing power: A taxonomy of responses from below to algorithmic harm

    Alicia DeVrio, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. Building, shifting, & employing power: A taxonomy of responses from below to algorithmic harm. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 1093–1106, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms

    Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry, 22(2014):4349–4357, 2014

    2014

  59. [67]

    Gray, Mary Czerwinski, and Jina Suh

    Alice Qian Zhang, Judith Amores, Mary L. Gray, Mary Czerwinski, and Jina Suh. Aura: Amplifying understanding, resilience, and awareness for responsible ai content work, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    participatory AI

    Karen Hao and Deepa Seetharaman. Cleaning up chatgpt takes heavy toll on human workers, 2023. 8 A Imagining paths forward What sources of inspiration can researchers or facilitators of participatory AI initiatives turn to in their pursuit of more equitable engagement practices...

    2023

  61. [69]

    Singh et al

    Alternative models of acknowledgment for participation. Singh et al. [ 50] develop protocols for recognizing community contribution to AI development by operationalizing a broad definition of authorship for academic papers. Similar initiatives have also been led or adopted by ...

  62. [70]

    create machine translation systems for the specific communities they belong to

    Alternative models of AI development . In contrast to enriching technology companies’ commercial foundation model offerings, some initiatives explore how to best support com- munities in developing their own smaller, more bespoke models, which are then owned and operated by co...

  63. [71]

    Licensing African Datasets

    Alternative models of dataset ownership and usage.Many participatory engagements involve compensating community members in exchange for complete ownership over their data (to use for future AI development). In contrast, several communities that own their data have experimented...

  64. [72]

    Many participa- tory engagements motivate community members to participate by lauding the benefits of improved GenAI representations

    Supporting community-driven impact assessment, criticism, and refusal. Many participa- tory engagements motivate community members to participate by lauding the benefits of improved GenAI representations. We urge those conducting such engagements to involve community members i...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.