Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Timnit Gebru, Margaret Mitchell, Joy Buolamwini, Joonseok Lee, Emily L. Denton
Although essential to revealing biased performance, well intentioned attempts at algorithmic auditing can have effects that may harm the very populations these measures are meant to protect. This concern is even more salient while auditing biometric systems such as facial recognition, where the data is sensitive and the technology is often used in ethically questionable manners. We demonstrate a set of fiveethical concerns in the particular case of auditing commercial facial processing technology, highlighting additional design considerations and ethical tensions the auditor needs to be aware of so as not exacerbate or complement the harms propagated by the audited system. We go further to provide tangible illustrations of these concerns, and conclude by reflecting on what these concerns mean for the role of the algorithmic audit and the fundamental product limitations they reveal.
{"title":"Saving Face: Investigating the Ethical Concerns of Facial Recognition Auditing","authors":"Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Timnit Gebru, Margaret Mitchell, Joy Buolamwini, Joonseok Lee, Emily L. Denton","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375820","url":null,"abstract":"Although essential to revealing biased performance, well intentioned attempts at algorithmic auditing can have effects that may harm the very populations these measures are meant to protect. This concern is even more salient while auditing biometric systems such as facial recognition, where the data is sensitive and the technology is often used in ethically questionable manners. We demonstrate a set of fiveethical concerns in the particular case of auditing commercial facial processing technology, highlighting additional design considerations and ethical tensions the auditor needs to be aware of so as not exacerbate or complement the harms propagated by the audited system. We go further to provide tangible illustrations of these concerns, and conclude by reflecting on what these concerns mean for the role of the algorithmic audit and the fundamental product limitations they reveal.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75645379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","authors":"","doi":"10.1145/3375627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72818403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Artificial intelligence (AI) has widespread societal implications, yet social scientists are only beginning to study public attitudes toward the technology. Existing studies find that the public's trust in institutions can play a major role in shaping the regulation of emerging technologies. Using a large-scale survey (N=2000), we examined Americans' perceptions of 13 AI governance challenges as well as their trust in governmental, corporate, and multistakeholder institutions to responsibly develop and manage AI. While Americans perceive all of the AI governance issues to be important for tech companies and governments to manage, they have only low to moderate trust in these institutions to manage AI applications.
{"title":"U.S. Public Opinion on the Governance of Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Baobao Zhang, A. Dafoe","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375827","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375827","url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence (AI) has widespread societal implications, yet social scientists are only beginning to study public attitudes toward the technology. Existing studies find that the public's trust in institutions can play a major role in shaping the regulation of emerging technologies. Using a large-scale survey (N=2000), we examined Americans' perceptions of 13 AI governance challenges as well as their trust in governmental, corporate, and multistakeholder institutions to responsibly develop and manage AI. While Americans perceive all of the AI governance issues to be important for tech companies and governments to manage, they have only low to moderate trust in these institutions to manage AI applications.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89906880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is growing concern over the potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Publishing scientific research can facilitate misuse of the technology, but the research can also contribute to protections against misuse. This paper addresses the balance between these two effects. Our theoretical framework elucidates the factors governing whether the published research will be more useful for attackers or defenders, such as the possibility for adequate defensive measures, or the independent discovery of the knowledge outside of the scientific community. The balance will vary across scientific fields. However, we show that the existing conversation within AI has imported concepts and conclusions from prior debates within computer security over the disclosure of software vulnerabilities. While disclosure of software vulnerabilities often favours defence, this cannot be assumed for AI research. The AI research community should consider concepts and policies from a broad set of adjacent fields, and ultimately needs to craft policy well-suited to its particular challenges.
{"title":"The Offense-Defense Balance of Scientific Knowledge: Does Publishing AI Research Reduce Misuse?","authors":"Toby Shevlane, A. Dafoe","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375815","url":null,"abstract":"There is growing concern over the potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Publishing scientific research can facilitate misuse of the technology, but the research can also contribute to protections against misuse. This paper addresses the balance between these two effects. Our theoretical framework elucidates the factors governing whether the published research will be more useful for attackers or defenders, such as the possibility for adequate defensive measures, or the independent discovery of the knowledge outside of the scientific community. The balance will vary across scientific fields. However, we show that the existing conversation within AI has imported concepts and conclusions from prior debates within computer security over the disclosure of software vulnerabilities. While disclosure of software vulnerabilities often favours defence, this cannot be assumed for AI research. The AI research community should consider concepts and policies from a broad set of adjacent fields, and ultimately needs to craft policy well-suited to its particular challenges.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87091374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cullen O'Keefe, P. Cihon, Ben Garfinkel, Carrick Flynn, Jade Leung, A. Dafoe
As the transformative potential of AI has become increasingly salient as a matter of public and political interest, there has been growing discussion about the need to ensure that AI broadly benefits humanity. This in turn has spurred debate on the social responsibilities of large technology companies to serve the interests of society at large. In response, ethical principles and codes of conduct have been proposed to meet the escalating demand for this responsibility to be taken seriously. As yet, however, few institutional innovations have been suggested to translate this responsibility into legal commitments which apply to companies positioned to reap large financial gains from the development and use of AI. This paper offers one potentially attractive tool for addressing such issues: the Windfall Clause, which is an ex ante commitment by AI firms to donate a significant amount of any eventual extremely large profits. By this we mean an early commitment that profits that a firm could not earn without achieving fundamental, economically transformative breakthroughs in AI capabilities will be donated to benefit humanity broadly, with particular attention towards mitigating any downsides from deployment of windfall-generating AI.
{"title":"The Windfall Clause: Distributing the Benefits of AI for the Common Good","authors":"Cullen O'Keefe, P. Cihon, Ben Garfinkel, Carrick Flynn, Jade Leung, A. Dafoe","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375842","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375842","url":null,"abstract":"As the transformative potential of AI has become increasingly salient as a matter of public and political interest, there has been growing discussion about the need to ensure that AI broadly benefits humanity. This in turn has spurred debate on the social responsibilities of large technology companies to serve the interests of society at large. In response, ethical principles and codes of conduct have been proposed to meet the escalating demand for this responsibility to be taken seriously. As yet, however, few institutional innovations have been suggested to translate this responsibility into legal commitments which apply to companies positioned to reap large financial gains from the development and use of AI. This paper offers one potentially attractive tool for addressing such issues: the Windfall Clause, which is an ex ante commitment by AI firms to donate a significant amount of any eventual extremely large profits. By this we mean an early commitment that profits that a firm could not earn without achieving fundamental, economically transformative breakthroughs in AI capabilities will be donated to benefit humanity broadly, with particular attention towards mitigating any downsides from deployment of windfall-generating AI.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84807413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael A. Katell, Karen Huang, Ghislain Bugingo
Recent concern about harms of information technologies motivate consideration of regulatory action to forestall or constrain certain developments in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). However, definitional ambiguity hampers the possibility of conversation about this urgent topic of public concern. Legal and regulatory interventions require agreed-upon definitions, but consensus around a definition of AI has been elusive, especially in policy conversations. With an eye towards practical working definitions and a broader understanding of positions on these issues, we survey experts and review published policy documents to examine researcher and policy-maker conceptions of AI. We find that while AI researchers favor definitions of AI that emphasize technical functionality, policy-makers instead use definitions that compare systems to human thinking and behavior. We point out that definitions adhering closely to the functionality of AI systems are more inclusive of technologies in use today, whereas definitions that emphasize human-like capabilities are most applicable to hypothetical future technologies. As a result of this gap, ethical and regulatory efforts may overemphasize concern about future technologies at the expense of pressing issues with existing deployed technologies.
{"title":"Defining AI in Policy versus Practice","authors":"P. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael A. Katell, Karen Huang, Ghislain Bugingo","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375835","url":null,"abstract":"Recent concern about harms of information technologies motivate consideration of regulatory action to forestall or constrain certain developments in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). However, definitional ambiguity hampers the possibility of conversation about this urgent topic of public concern. Legal and regulatory interventions require agreed-upon definitions, but consensus around a definition of AI has been elusive, especially in policy conversations. With an eye towards practical working definitions and a broader understanding of positions on these issues, we survey experts and review published policy documents to examine researcher and policy-maker conceptions of AI. We find that while AI researchers favor definitions of AI that emphasize technical functionality, policy-makers instead use definitions that compare systems to human thinking and behavior. We point out that definitions adhering closely to the functionality of AI systems are more inclusive of technologies in use today, whereas definitions that emphasize human-like capabilities are most applicable to hypothetical future technologies. As a result of this gap, ethical and regulatory efforts may overemphasize concern about future technologies at the expense of pressing issues with existing deployed technologies.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78680434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We present an innovative methodology for studying and teaching the impacts of AI through a role-play game. The game serves two primary purposes: 1) training AI developers and AI policy professionals to reflect on and prepare for future social and ethical challenges related to AI and 2) exploring possible futures involving AI technology development, deployment, social impacts, and governance. While the game currently focuses on the inter-relations between short-, mid- and long-term impacts of AI, it has potential to be adapted for a broad range of scenarios, exploring in greater depths issues of AI policy research and affording training within organizations. The game presented here has undergone two years of development and has been tested through over 30 events involving between 3 and 70 participants. The game is under active development, but preliminary findings suggest that role-play is a promising methodology for both exploring AI futures and training individuals and organizations in thinking about, and reflecting on, the impacts of AI and strategic mistakes that can be avoided today.
{"title":"Exploring AI Futures Through Role Play","authors":"S. Avin, Ross Gruetzemacher, J. Fox","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375817","url":null,"abstract":"We present an innovative methodology for studying and teaching the impacts of AI through a role-play game. The game serves two primary purposes: 1) training AI developers and AI policy professionals to reflect on and prepare for future social and ethical challenges related to AI and 2) exploring possible futures involving AI technology development, deployment, social impacts, and governance. While the game currently focuses on the inter-relations between short-, mid- and long-term impacts of AI, it has potential to be adapted for a broad range of scenarios, exploring in greater depths issues of AI policy research and affording training within organizations. The game presented here has undergone two years of development and has been tested through over 30 events involving between 3 and 70 participants. The game is under active development, but preliminary findings suggest that role-play is a promising methodology for both exploring AI futures and training individuals and organizations in thinking about, and reflecting on, the impacts of AI and strategic mistakes that can be avoided today.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77860836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We tackle the problem of building explainable recommendation systems that are based on a per-user decision tree, with decision rules that are based on single attribute values. We build the trees by applying learned regression functions to obtain the decision rules as well as the values at the leaf nodes. The regression functions receive as input the embedding of the user's training set, as well as the embedding of the samples that arrive at the current node. The embedding and the regressors are learned end-to-end with a loss that encourages the decision rules to be sparse. By applying our method, we obtain a collaborative filtering solution that provides a direct explanation to every rating it provides. With regards to accuracy, it is competitive with other algorithms. However, as expected, explainability comes at a cost and the accuracy is typically slightly lower than the state of the art result reported in the literature. Our code is available at urlhttps://github.com/shulmaneyal/metatrees.
{"title":"Meta Decision Trees for Explainable Recommendation Systems","authors":"Eyal Shulman, Lior Wolf","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375876","url":null,"abstract":"We tackle the problem of building explainable recommendation systems that are based on a per-user decision tree, with decision rules that are based on single attribute values. We build the trees by applying learned regression functions to obtain the decision rules as well as the values at the leaf nodes. The regression functions receive as input the embedding of the user's training set, as well as the embedding of the samples that arrive at the current node. The embedding and the regressors are learned end-to-end with a loss that encourages the decision rules to be sparse. By applying our method, we obtain a collaborative filtering solution that provides a direct explanation to every rating it provides. With regards to accuracy, it is competitive with other algorithms. However, as expected, explainability comes at a cost and the accuracy is typically slightly lower than the state of the art result reported in the literature. Our code is available at urlhttps://github.com/shulmaneyal/metatrees.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82466812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daniel S. Schiff, J. Biddle, J. Borenstein, Kelly Laas
Since 2016, more than 80 AI ethics documents - including codes, principles, frameworks, and policy strategies - have been produced by corporations, governments, and NGOs. In this paper, we examine three topics of importance related to our ongoing empirical study of ethics and policy issues in these emerging documents. First, we review possible challenges associated with the relative homogeneity of the documents' creators. Second, we provide a novel typology of motivations to characterize both obvious and less obvious goals of the documents. Third, we discuss the varied impacts these documents may have on the AI governance landscape, including what factors are relevant to assessing whether a given document is likely to be successful in achieving its goals.
{"title":"What's Next for AI Ethics, Policy, and Governance? A Global Overview","authors":"Daniel S. Schiff, J. Biddle, J. Borenstein, Kelly Laas","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375804","url":null,"abstract":"Since 2016, more than 80 AI ethics documents - including codes, principles, frameworks, and policy strategies - have been produced by corporations, governments, and NGOs. In this paper, we examine three topics of importance related to our ongoing empirical study of ethics and policy issues in these emerging documents. First, we review possible challenges associated with the relative homogeneity of the documents' creators. Second, we provide a novel typology of motivations to characterize both obvious and less obvious goals of the documents. Third, we discuss the varied impacts these documents may have on the AI governance landscape, including what factors are relevant to assessing whether a given document is likely to be successful in achieving its goals.","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78544944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Vedant Nanda, Pan Xu, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, John P. Dickerson, A. Srinivasan
Rideshare platforms, when assigning requests to drivers, tend to maximize profit for the system and/or minimize waiting time for riders. Such platforms can exacerbate biases that drivers may have over certain types of requests. We consider the case of peak hours when the demand for rides is more than the supply of drivers. Drivers are well aware of their advantage during the peak hours and can choose to be selective about which rides to accept. Moreover, if in such a scenario, the assignment of requests to drivers (by the platform) is made only to maximize profit and/or minimize wait time for riders, requests of a certain type (e.g., from a non-popular pickup location, or to a non-popular drop-off location) might never be assigned to a driver. Such a system can be highly unfair to riders. However, increasing fairness might come at a cost of the overall profit made by the rideshare platform. To balance these conflicting goals, we present a flexible, non-adaptive algorithm, NAdap, that allows the platform designer to control the profit and fairness of the system via parameters α and β respectively.We model the matching problem as an online bipartite matching where the set of drivers is offline and requests arrive online. Upon the arrival of a request, we use NAdap to assign it to a driver (the driver might then choose to accept or reject it) or reject the request. We formalize the measures of profit and fairness in our setting and show that by using NAdap, the competitive ratios for profit and fairness measures would be no worse than α/e and β/e respectively. Extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets confirm the validity of our theoretical lower bounds. Additionally, they show that NAdap under some choice of (α, β) can beat two natural heuristics, Greedy and Uniform, on both fairness and profit. Code is available at: https://github.com/nvedant07/rideshare-fairness-peak/. Full paper can be found in the proceedings of AAAI 2020 and on ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08388).
{"title":"Balancing the Tradeoff between Profit and Fairness in Rideshare Platforms during High-Demand Hours","authors":"Vedant Nanda, Pan Xu, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, John P. Dickerson, A. Srinivasan","doi":"10.1145/3375627.3375818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375818","url":null,"abstract":"Rideshare platforms, when assigning requests to drivers, tend to maximize profit for the system and/or minimize waiting time for riders. Such platforms can exacerbate biases that drivers may have over certain types of requests. We consider the case of peak hours when the demand for rides is more than the supply of drivers. Drivers are well aware of their advantage during the peak hours and can choose to be selective about which rides to accept. Moreover, if in such a scenario, the assignment of requests to drivers (by the platform) is made only to maximize profit and/or minimize wait time for riders, requests of a certain type (e.g., from a non-popular pickup location, or to a non-popular drop-off location) might never be assigned to a driver. Such a system can be highly unfair to riders. However, increasing fairness might come at a cost of the overall profit made by the rideshare platform. To balance these conflicting goals, we present a flexible, non-adaptive algorithm, NAdap, that allows the platform designer to control the profit and fairness of the system via parameters α and β respectively.We model the matching problem as an online bipartite matching where the set of drivers is offline and requests arrive online. Upon the arrival of a request, we use NAdap to assign it to a driver (the driver might then choose to accept or reject it) or reject the request. We formalize the measures of profit and fairness in our setting and show that by using NAdap, the competitive ratios for profit and fairness measures would be no worse than α/e and β/e respectively. Extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets confirm the validity of our theoretical lower bounds. Additionally, they show that NAdap under some choice of (α, β) can beat two natural heuristics, Greedy and Uniform, on both fairness and profit. Code is available at: https://github.com/nvedant07/rideshare-fairness-peak/. Full paper can be found in the proceedings of AAAI 2020 and on ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08388).","PeriodicalId":93612,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73457517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：