pith. sign in

arxiv: 2306.03280 · v1 · pith:7MGIZ5PZnew · submitted 2023-06-05 · 💻 cs.HC

AHA!: Facilitating AI Impact Assessment by Generating Examples of Harms

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords harmsdifferentdeploymentexamplespossiblepotentialstakeholdersvignettes
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

While demands for change and accountability for harmful AI consequences mount, foreseeing the downstream effects of deploying AI systems remains a challenging task. We developed AHA! (Anticipating Harms of AI), a generative framework to assist AI practitioners and decision-makers in anticipating potential harms and unintended consequences of AI systems prior to development or deployment. Given an AI deployment scenario, AHA! generates descriptions of possible harms for different stakeholders. To do so, AHA! systematically considers the interplay between common problematic AI behaviors as well as their potential impacts on different stakeholders, and narrates these conditions through vignettes. These vignettes are then filled in with descriptions of possible harms by prompting crowd workers and large language models. By examining 4113 harms surfaced by AHA! for five different AI deployment scenarios, we found that AHA! generates meaningful examples of harms, with different problematic AI behaviors resulting in different types of harms. Prompting both crowds and a large language model with the vignettes resulted in more diverse examples of harms than those generated by either the crowd or the model alone. To gauge AHA!'s potential practical utility, we also conducted semi-structured interviews with responsible AI professionals (N=9). Participants found AHA!'s systematic approach to surfacing harms important for ethical reflection and discovered meaningful stakeholders and harms they believed they would not have thought of otherwise. Participants, however, differed in their opinions about whether AHA! should be used upfront or as a secondary-check and noted that AHA! may shift harm anticipation from an ideation problem to a potentially demanding review problem. Drawing on our results, we discuss design implications of building tools to help practitioners envision possible harms.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. When and How AI Should Assist Brainstorming for AI Impact Assessment

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AI improves brainstorming quality for general-purpose impact assessment but not specialized applications when it offers hints early and structures ideas later, based on workshop evaluations with 54 participants.

  2. Skin-Deep Bias: How Avatar Appearances Shape Perceptions of AI Hiring

    cs.HC 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Racial mismatch between applicant and AI avatar increased perceived ethnic bias, while sharing only one identity trait lowered fairness ratings compared to full or no match.

  3. Informing AI Policy Assessment using Large-Scale Simulation of Interventions

    cs.CY 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    A genetic algorithm exploring billions of policy combinations, scored by LLM-evaluated harm mitigation, expert cost, and participatory ratings, identifies viable AI policy options under different weighting schemes.