REVIEW 1 cited by
Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
What does it mean for a machine learning model to be `fair', in terms which can be operationalised? Should fairness consist of ensuring everyone has an equal probability of obtaining some benefit, or should we aim instead to minimise the harms to the least advantaged? Can the relevant ideal be determined by reference to some alternative state of affairs in which a particular social pattern of discrimination does not exist? Various definitions proposed in recent literature make different assumptions about what terms like discrimination and fairness mean and how they can be defined in mathematical terms. Questions of discrimination, egalitarianism and justice are of significant interest to moral and political philosophers, who have expended significant efforts in formalising and defending these central concepts. It is therefore unsurprising that attempts to formalise `fairness' in machine learning contain echoes of these old philosophical debates. This paper draws on existing work in moral and political philosophy in order to elucidate emerging debates about fair machine learning.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
What Shapes User Trust in ChatGPT? A Mixed-Methods Study of User Attributes, Trust Dimensions, Task Context, and Societal Perceptions among University Students
Frequent use, perceived expertise, and ethical risk perceptions predict university students' trust in ChatGPT, while trust varies strongly by task type.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.