Making Intelligence: Ethical Values in IQ and ML Benchmarks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In recent years, ML researchers have wrestled with defining and improving machine learning (ML) benchmarks and datasets. In parallel, some have trained a critical lens on the ethics of dataset creation and ML research. In this position paper, we highlight the entanglement of ethics with seemingly ``technical'' or ``scientific'' decisions about the design of ML benchmarks. Our starting point is the existence of multiple overlooked structural similarities between human intelligence benchmarks and ML benchmarks. Both types of benchmarks set standards for describing, evaluating, and comparing performance on tasks relevant to intelligence -- standards that many scholars of human intelligence have long recognized as value-laden. We use perspectives from feminist philosophy of science on IQ benchmarks and thick concepts in social science to argue that values need to be considered and documented when creating ML benchmarks. It is neither possible nor desirable to avoid this choice by creating value-neutral benchmarks. Finally, we outline practical recommendations for ML benchmark research ethics and ethics review.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 111 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2022.
Builds on
26 of 111 references.
References · 26
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
- 2020XTREME: A Massively Multilingual Multi-task Benchmark for Evaluating Cross-lingual Generalizationcited by 738
- 2019A Large-scale Study of Representation Learning with the Visual Task Adaptation Benchmarkcited by 419
- 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 340
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
- 2020Experience Grounds Languagecited by 241
- 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
- 2021Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine visioncited by 185
- 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
- 2019Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Resultscited by 164
- 2020The Hardware Lotterycited by 160
14 more
- 2021The Benchmark Lotterycited by 133
- 2022The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3cited by 105
- 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 98
- 2021Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Developmentcited by 85
- 2022CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotationcited by 59
- 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 48
- 2020Bringing the People Back In: Contesting Benchmark Machine Learning Datasetscited by 43
- 2021Detecting Cross-Geographic Biases in Toxicity Modeling on Social Mediacited by 31
- 2022A Validity Perspective on Evaluating the Justified Use of Data-driven Decision-making Algorithmscited by 30
- 2019Value-laden Disciplinary Shifts in Machine Learningcited by 25
- 2020Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deploymentcited by 22
- 2021Institutionalising Ethics in AI through Broader Impact Requirementscited by 20
- 2019Leveling the Playing Field -- Fairness in AI Versus Human Game Benchmarkscited by 4
- 2022Should attention be all we need? The epistemic and ethical implications of unification in machine learningcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
10 papers.
- 2025Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluationcited by 57
- 2024Beyond Preferences in AI Alignmentcited by 46
- 2023Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairnesscited by 26
- 2024Position: Measure Dataset Diversity, Don't Just Claim Itcited by 26
- 2023Ethical Considerations for Responsible Data Curationcited by 17
- 2025The Benchmarking Epistemology: Validity Theory for Evaluating Machine Learning Modelscited by 12
- 2024Value Imprint: A Technique for Auditing the Human Values Embedded in RLHF Datasetscited by 11
- 2024Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 9
- 2024A Taxonomy of Challenges to Curating Fair Datasetscited by 2
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotationcited by 1
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation11 Feb 2026
- 2025The Benchmarking Epistemology: Validity Theory for Evaluating Machine Learning Models27 Oct 2025
- 2025Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation10 Feb 2025
- 2024Value Imprint: A Technique for Auditing the Human Values Embedded in RLHF Datasets18 Nov 2024
- 2024Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment30 Aug 2024
- 2024Position: Measure Dataset Diversity, Don't Just Claim It11 Jul 2024
- 2024A Taxonomy of Challenges to Curating Fair Datasets10 Jun 2024
- 2024Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Data Mining Perspective9 Jan 2024
- 2023Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness16 Mar 2023
- 2023Ethical Considerations for Responsible Data Curation7 Feb 2023