Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment

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

arxiv 2011.13416 v3 pith:HQ3VJ34E submitted 2020-11-26 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords harmssystemrangestakeholdersaffordancesanticipatingcomputationalfailures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

NeurIPS 2020 requested that research paper submissions include impact statements on "potential nefarious uses and the consequences of failure." However, as researchers, practitioners and system designers, a key challenge to anticipating risks is overcoming what Clarke (1962) called 'failures of imagination.' The growing research on bias, fairness, and transparency in computational systems aims to illuminate and mitigate harms, and could thus help inform reflections on possible negative impacts of particular pieces of technical work. The prevalent notion of computational harms -- narrowly construed as either allocational or representational harms -- does not fully capture the open, context dependent, and unobservable nature of harms across the wide range of AI infused systems.The current literature focuses on a small range of examples of harms to motivate algorithmic fixes, overlooking the wider scope of probable harms and the way these harms might affect different stakeholders. The system affordances may also exacerbate harms in unpredictable ways, as they determine stakeholders' control(including of non-users) over how they use and interact with a system output. To effectively assist in anticipating harmful uses, we argue that frameworks of harms must be context-aware and consider a wider range of potential stakeholders, system affordances, as well as viable proxies for assessing harms in the widest sense.

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. More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners

    cs.AI 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI benchmarks act as relative progress signals for practitioners, but product and policy users often find them insufficient for substantive deployment decisions.

  2. Can we Debias Social Stereotypes in AI-Generated Images? Examining Text-to-Image Outputs and User Perceptions

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A rubric-based Social Stereotype Index shows prompt refinement lowers measured stereotypes in text-to-image outputs, but users often still prefer the stereotypical versions.

  3. Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A position paper argues that understanding AI's second-order effects requires moving from static benchmarks to an ecosystem of field testing, red teaming, and contextual evaluation.

Pith tools