arXiv subjects

Glen Berman

Publications and source records attributed to Glen Berman.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"Death by a thousand taxonomies?": AI Risk Classification In Practice

The harms in which AI is implicated range in nature and scope from unsafe user interactions through to the societal-wide consequences of AI adoption. Classification of the diverse risks of AI is foundational to AI governance: regulators, technology firms, and policymakers need structured accounts of risk upon which to act. Researchers and practitioners have accordingly developed many Sociotechnical Outcome Taxonomies (SOT). This paper presents an empirical study of SOT development and use, drawing on 25 interviews with researchers and practitioners across industry, academia, civil society, and government. We find SOT are weakly integrated into AI governance processes, and identify two features of SOT design and use that explain why. First, the design choices through which SOT produce structured representations of the complex problem space of AI risks tend to be invisible to downstream taxonomy users. Those users treat the resulting categories as exhaustive accounts of risk rather than as interpretive aids. Second, SOT typically enumerate harms without linking them to decision points or actors implicated in their occurrence, leaving accountability difficult to assign. We close with design recommendations for SOT developers and users, and argue realising the potential of SOT requires governance infrastructure that does not yet exist.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Troubling Taxonomies in GenAI Evaluation

To evaluate the societal impacts of GenAI requires a model of how social harms emerge from interactions between GenAI, people, and societal structures. Yet a model is rarely explicitly defined in societal impact evaluations, or in the taxonomies of societal impacts that support them. In this provocation, we argue that societal impacts should be conceptualised as application- and context-specific, incommensurable, and shaped by questions of social power. Doing so leads us to conclude that societal impact evaluations using existing taxonomies are inherently limited, in terms of their potential to reveal how GenAI systems may interact with people when introduced into specific social contexts. We therefore propose a governance-first approach to managing societal harms attended by GenAI technologies.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

A Scoping Study of Evaluation Practices for Responsible AI Tools: Steps Towards Effectiveness Evaluations

Responsible design of AI systems is a shared goal across HCI and AI communities. Responsible AI (RAI) tools have been developed to support practitioners to identify, assess, and mitigate ethical issues during AI development. These tools take many forms (e.g., design playbooks, software toolkits, documentation protocols). However, research suggests that use of RAI tools is shaped by organizational contexts, raising questions about how effective such tools are in practice. To better understand how RAI tools are -- and might be -- evaluated, we conducted a qualitative analysis of 37 publications that discuss evaluations of RAI tools. We find that most evaluations focus on usability, while questions of tools' effectiveness in changing AI development are sidelined. While usability evaluations are an important approach to evaluate RAI tools, we draw on evaluation approaches from other fields to highlight developer- and community-level steps to support evaluations of RAI tools' effectiveness in shaping AI development practices and outcomes.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Machine Learning practices and infrastructures

Machine Learning (ML) systems, particularly when deployed in high-stakes domains, are deeply consequential. They can exacerbate existing inequities, create new modes of discrimination, and reify outdated social constructs. Accordingly, the social context (i.e. organisations, teams, cultures) in which ML systems are developed is a site of active research for the field of AI ethics, and intervention for policymakers. This paper focuses on one aspect of social context that is often overlooked: interactions between practitioners and the tools they rely on, and the role these interactions play in shaping ML practices and the development of ML systems. In particular, through an empirical study of questions asked on the Stack Exchange forums, the use of interactive computing platforms (e.g. Jupyter Notebook and Google Colab) in ML practices is explored. I find that interactive computing platforms are used in a host of learning and coordination practices, which constitutes an infrastructural relationship between interactive computing platforms and ML practitioners. I describe how ML practices are co-evolving alongside the development of interactive computing platforms, and highlight how this risks making invisible aspects of the ML life cycle that AI ethics researchers' have demonstrated to be particularly salient for the societal impact of deployed ML systems.

cs.CY↗