mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Making Intelligence: Ethical Values in IQ and ML Benchmarks

arXiv 2209.00692 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2022cs.LG cs.CYcited by 10

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

  1. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  2. 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
  3. 2020XTREME: A Massively Multilingual Multi-task Benchmark for Evaluating Cross-lingual Generalizationcited by 738
  4. 2019A Large-scale Study of Representation Learning with the Visual Task Adaptation Benchmarkcited by 419
  5. 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 340
  6. 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
  7. 2020Experience Grounds Languagecited by 241
  8. 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
  9. 2021Partial success in closing the gap between human and machine visioncited by 185
  10. 2021The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Researchcited by 172
  11. 2019Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Resultscited by 164
  12. 2020The Hardware Lotterycited by 160
14 more
  1. 2021The Benchmark Lotterycited by 133
  2. 2022The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3cited by 105
  3. 2021Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfarecited by 98
  4. 2021Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Developmentcited by 85
  5. 2022CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotationcited by 59
  6. 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 48
  7. 2020Bringing the People Back In: Contesting Benchmark Machine Learning Datasetscited by 43
  8. 2021Detecting Cross-Geographic Biases in Toxicity Modeling on Social Mediacited by 31
  9. 2022A Validity Perspective on Evaluating the Justified Use of Data-driven Decision-making Algorithmscited by 30
  10. 2019Value-laden Disciplinary Shifts in Machine Learningcited by 25
  11. 2020Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deploymentcited by 22
  12. 2021Institutionalising Ethics in AI through Broader Impact Requirementscited by 20
  13. 2019Leveling the Playing Field -- Fairness in AI Versus Human Game Benchmarkscited by 4
  14. 2022Should attention be all we need? The epistemic and ethical implications of unification in machine learningcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

10 papers.