arXiv subjects

Alex John London

Publications and source records attributed to Alex John London.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants

Algorithmic fairness research has largely framed unfairness as discrimination along sensitive attributes. However, this approach limits visibility into unfairness as structural injustice instantiated through social determinants, which are contextual variables that shape attributes and outcomes without pertaining to specific individuals. This position paper argues that the field should quantify structural injustice via social determinants, beyond sensitive attributes. Drawing on cross-disciplinary insights, we argue that prevailing technical paradigms fail to adequately capture unfairness as structural injustice, because contexts are potentially treated as noise to be normalized rather than signal to be audited. We further demonstrate the practical urgency of this shift through a theoretical model of college admissions, a demographic study using U.S. census data, and a high-stakes domain application regarding breast cancer screening within an integrated U.S. healthcare system. Our results indicate that mitigation strategies centered solely on sensitive attributes can introduce new forms of structural injustice. We contend that auditing structural injustice through social determinants must precede mitigation, and call for new technical developments that move beyond sensitive-attribute-centered notions of fairness as non-discrimination.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Learning the Value of Value Learning

Standard decision frameworks address uncertainty about facts but assume fixed options and values. We extend the Jeffrey-Bolker framework to model refinements in values and prove a value-of-information theorem for axiological refinement. In multi-agent settings, we establish that mutual refinement will characteristically transform zero-sum games into positive-sum interactions and yield Pareto-improvements in Nash bargaining. These results show that a framework of rational choice can be extended to model value refinement. By unifying epistemic and axiological refinement under a single formalism, we broaden the conceptual foundations of rational choice and illuminate the normative status of ethical deliberation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Generative AI for Biosciences: Emerging Threats and Roadmap to Biosecurity

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in the biosciences is transforming biotechnology, medicine, and synthetic biology. Yet this advancement is intrinsically linked to new vulnerabilities, as GenAI lowers the barrier to misuse and introduces novel biosecurity threats, such as generating synthetic viral proteins or toxins. These dual-use risks are often overlooked, as existing safety guardrails remain fragile and can be circumvented through deceptive prompts or jailbreak techniques. In this Perspective, we first outline the current state of GenAI in the biosciences and emerging threat vectors ranging from jailbreak attacks and privacy risks to the dual-use challenges posed by autonomous AI agents. We then examine urgent gaps in regulation and oversight, drawing on insights from 130 expert interviews across academia, government, industry, and policy. A large majority ($\approx 76$\%) expressed concern over AI misuse in biology, and 74\% called for the development of new governance frameworks. Finally, we explore technical pathways to mitigation, advocating a multi-layered approach to GenAI safety. These defenses include rigorous data filtering, alignment with ethical principles during development, and real-time monitoring to block harmful requests. Together, these strategies provide a blueprint for embedding security throughout the GenAI lifecycle. As GenAI becomes integrated into the biosciences, safeguarding this frontier requires an immediate commitment to both adaptive governance and secure-by-design technologies.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Beneficent Intelligence: A Capability Approach to Modeling Benefit, Assistance, and Associated Moral Failures through AI Systems

The prevailing discourse around AI ethics lacks the language and formalism necessary to capture the diverse ethical concerns that emerge when AI systems interact with individuals. Drawing on Sen and Nussbaum's capability approach, we present a framework formalizing a network of ethical concepts and entitlements necessary for AI systems to confer meaningful benefit or assistance to stakeholders. Such systems enhance stakeholders' ability to advance their life plans and well-being while upholding their fundamental rights. We characterize two necessary conditions for morally permissible interactions between AI systems and those impacted by their functioning, and two sufficient conditions for realizing the ideal of meaningful benefit. We then contrast this ideal with several salient failure modes, namely, forms of social interactions that constitute unjustified paternalism, coercion, deception, exploitation and domination. The proliferation of incidents involving AI in high-stakes domains underscores the gravity of these issues and the imperative to take an ethics-led approach to AI systems from their inception.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2023

Resolving the Human Subjects Status of Machine Learning's Crowdworkers

In recent years, machine learning (ML) has relied heavily on crowdworkers both for building datasets and for addressing research questions requiring human interaction or judgment. The diverse tasks performed and uses of the data produced render it difficult to determine when crowdworkers are best thought of as workers (versus human subjects). These difficulties are compounded by conflicting policies, with some institutions and researchers regarding all ML crowdworkers as human subjects and others holding that they rarely constitute human subjects. Notably few ML papers involving crowdwork mention IRB oversight, raising the prospect of non-compliance with ethical and regulatory requirements. We investigate the appropriate designation of ML crowdsourcing studies, focusing our inquiry on natural language processing to expose unique challenges for research oversight. Crucially, under the U.S. Common Rule, these judgments hinge on determinations of aboutness, concerning both whom (or what) the collected data is about and whom (or what) the analysis is about. We highlight two challenges posed by ML: the same set of workers can serve multiple roles and provide many sorts of information; and ML research tends to embrace a dynamic workflow, where research questions are seldom stated ex ante and data sharing opens the door for future studies to aim questions at different targets. Our analysis exposes a potential loophole in the Common Rule, where researchers can elude research ethics oversight by splitting data collection and analysis into distinct studies. Finally, we offer several policy recommendations to address these concerns.

cs.CY↗