Are Algorithms Value-Free?

IF 1.1 2区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Moral Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1163/17455243-20234372
Gabbrielle M. Johnson
{"title":"Are Algorithms Value-Free?","authors":"Gabbrielle M. Johnson","doi":"10.1163/17455243-20234372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As inductive decision-making procedures, the inferences made by machine learning programs are subject to underdetermination by evidence and bear inductive risk. One strategy for overcoming these challenges is guided by a presumption in philosophy of science that inductive inferences can and should be value-free. Applied to machine learning programs, the strategy assumes that the influence of values is restricted to data and decision outcomes, thereby omitting internal value-laden design choice points. In this paper, I apply arguments from feminist philosophy of science to machine learning programs to make the case that the resources required to respond to these inductive challenges render critical aspects of their design constitutively value-laden. I demonstrate these points specifically in the case of recidivism algorithms, arguing that contemporary debates concerning fairness in criminal justice risk-assessment programs are best understood as iterations of traditional arguments from inductive risk and demarcation, and thereby establish the value-laden nature of automated decision-making programs. Finally, in light of these points, I address opportunities for relocating the value-free ideal in machine learning and the limitations that accompany them.","PeriodicalId":51879,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Moral Philosophy","volume":"139 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Moral Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-20234372","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As inductive decision-making procedures, the inferences made by machine learning programs are subject to underdetermination by evidence and bear inductive risk. One strategy for overcoming these challenges is guided by a presumption in philosophy of science that inductive inferences can and should be value-free. Applied to machine learning programs, the strategy assumes that the influence of values is restricted to data and decision outcomes, thereby omitting internal value-laden design choice points. In this paper, I apply arguments from feminist philosophy of science to machine learning programs to make the case that the resources required to respond to these inductive challenges render critical aspects of their design constitutively value-laden. I demonstrate these points specifically in the case of recidivism algorithms, arguing that contemporary debates concerning fairness in criminal justice risk-assessment programs are best understood as iterations of traditional arguments from inductive risk and demarcation, and thereby establish the value-laden nature of automated decision-making programs. Finally, in light of these points, I address opportunities for relocating the value-free ideal in machine learning and the limitations that accompany them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
算法没有价值吗?
作为归纳式决策程序,机器学习程序所做的推论会受到证据不足的影响,并承担归纳风险。克服这些挑战的一种策略是以科学哲学中的一个假设为指导,即归纳推理可以而且应该是无价值的。在应用于机器学习程序时,该策略假定价值的影响仅限于数据和决策结果,从而忽略了内部的价值设计选择点。在本文中,我将女权主义科学哲学的论点应用到机器学习程序中,论证了应对这些归纳挑战所需的资源使得机器学习程序设计的关键方面具有价值性。我以累犯算法为例具体论证了这些观点,认为当代有关刑事司法风险评估程序公平性的争论最好被理解为归纳风险和分界传统论点的迭代,从而确立了自动决策程序的价值负载性质。最后,根据这些观点,我探讨了在机器学习中重新定位无价值理想的机会以及随之而来的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Moral Philosophy is a peer-reviewed journal of moral, political and legal philosophy with an international focus. It publishes articles in all areas of normative philosophy, including pure and applied ethics, as well as moral, legal, and political theory. Articles exploring non-Western traditions are also welcome. The Journal seeks to promote lively discussions and debates for established academics and the wider community, by publishing articles that avoid unnecessary jargon without sacrificing academic rigour. It encourages contributions from newer members of the philosophical community. The Journal of Moral Philosophy is published four times a year, in January, April, July and October.
期刊最新文献
Threatening Quality of Will The Moral Duty Not to Confirm Negative Stereotypes Robust Normativity and the Argument from Weirdness A Bargaining-Theoretic Approach to Moral Uncertainty Are Algorithms Value-Free?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1