Racial categories in machine learning

Sebastian Benthall, Bruce D. Haynes
{"title":"Racial categories in machine learning","authors":"Sebastian Benthall, Bruce D. Haynes","doi":"10.1145/3287560.3287575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Controversies around race and machine learning have sparked debate among computer scientists over how to design machine learning systems that guarantee fairness. These debates rarely engage with how racial identity is embedded in our social experience, making for sociological and psychological complexity. This complexity challenges the paradigm of considering fairness to be a formal property of supervised learning with respect to protected personal attributes. Racial identity is not simply a personal subjective quality. For people labeled \"Black\" it is an ascribed political category that has consequences for social differentiation embedded in systemic patterns of social inequality achieved through both social and spatial segregation. In the United States, racial classification can best be understood as a system of inherently unequal status categories that places whites as the most privileged category while signifying the Negro/black category as stigmatized. Social stigma is reinforced through the unequal distribution of societal rewards and goods along racial lines that is reinforced by state, corporate, and civic institutions and practices. This creates a dilemma for society and designers: be blind to racial group disparities and thereby reify racialized social inequality by no longer measuring systemic inequality, or be conscious of racial categories in a way that itself reifies race. We propose a third option. By preceding group fairness interventions with unsupervised learning to dynamically detect patterns of segregation, machine learning systems can mitigate the root cause of social disparities, social segregation and stratification, without further anchoring status categories of disadvantage.","PeriodicalId":20573,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"96","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287575","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 96

Abstract

Controversies around race and machine learning have sparked debate among computer scientists over how to design machine learning systems that guarantee fairness. These debates rarely engage with how racial identity is embedded in our social experience, making for sociological and psychological complexity. This complexity challenges the paradigm of considering fairness to be a formal property of supervised learning with respect to protected personal attributes. Racial identity is not simply a personal subjective quality. For people labeled "Black" it is an ascribed political category that has consequences for social differentiation embedded in systemic patterns of social inequality achieved through both social and spatial segregation. In the United States, racial classification can best be understood as a system of inherently unequal status categories that places whites as the most privileged category while signifying the Negro/black category as stigmatized. Social stigma is reinforced through the unequal distribution of societal rewards and goods along racial lines that is reinforced by state, corporate, and civic institutions and practices. This creates a dilemma for society and designers: be blind to racial group disparities and thereby reify racialized social inequality by no longer measuring systemic inequality, or be conscious of racial categories in a way that itself reifies race. We propose a third option. By preceding group fairness interventions with unsupervised learning to dynamically detect patterns of segregation, machine learning systems can mitigate the root cause of social disparities, social segregation and stratification, without further anchoring status categories of disadvantage.
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
机器学习中的种族分类
关于种族和机器学习的争议引发了计算机科学家关于如何设计保证公平的机器学习系统的争论。这些辩论很少涉及种族身份如何嵌入我们的社会经验,从而导致社会学和心理学的复杂性。这种复杂性挑战了将公平性视为监督学习的正式属性的范式,而不是受保护的个人属性。种族认同不仅仅是个人的主观品质。对于那些被贴上“黑人”标签的人来说,这是一个被赋予的政治类别,它对社会分化产生了影响,这种社会分化植根于通过社会和空间隔离实现的社会不平等的系统性模式中。在美国,种族分类最好被理解为一种本质上不平等的地位类别制度,将白人视为最特权的类别,而将黑人/黑人类别视为耻辱。国家、企业和民间机构和实践进一步强化了社会奖励和商品沿种族界线的不平等分配,从而加剧了社会耻辱。这给社会和设计师带来了两难境地:要么无视种族群体差异,不再衡量系统性不平等,从而使种族化的社会不平等具体化,要么意识到种族类别本身就是种族的具体化。我们提出第三种选择。通过预先使用无监督学习进行群体公平干预,以动态检测隔离模式,机器学习系统可以减轻社会差异、社会隔离和分层的根源,而无需进一步锚定劣势地位类别。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Algorithmic Transparency from the South: Examining the state of algorithmic transparency in Chile's public administration algorithms FAccT '21: 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Virtual Event / Toronto, Canada, March 3-10, 2021 Transparency universal Resisting transparency Conclusion
×
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