Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Managerial Effects of Algorithmic Fairness Activism

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 2012.02393 v1 pith:ON3AZV35 submitted 2020-12-04 econ.GN cs.CYq-fin.EC

classification econ.GNcs.CYq-fin.EC
keywords argumentseffectsactivismfairnessalgorithmicbusinessmanagerialscientific
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

How do ethical arguments affect AI adoption in business? We randomly expose business decision-makers to arguments used in AI fairness activism. Arguments emphasizing the inescapability of algorithmic bias lead managers to abandon AI for manual review by humans and report greater expectations about lawsuits and negative PR. These effects persist even when AI lowers gender and racial disparities and when engineering investments to address AI fairness are feasible. Emphasis on status quo comparisons yields opposite effects. We also measure the effects of "scientific veneer" in AI ethics arguments. Scientific veneer changes managerial behavior but does not asymmetrically benefit favorable (versus critical) AI activism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools