mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How Technology Impacts and Compares to Humans in Socially Consequential Arenas

arXiv 2211.03554 ↗First posted 2 Nov 2022cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

One of the main promises of technology development is for it to be adopted by people, organizations, societies, and governments -- incorporated into their life, work stream, or processes. Often, this is socially beneficial as it automates mundane tasks, frees up more time for other more important things, or otherwise improves the lives of those who use the technology. However, these beneficial results do not apply in every scenario and may not impact everyone in a system the same way. Sometimes a technology is developed which produces both benefits and inflicts some harm. These harms may come at a higher cost to some people than others, raising the question: it how are benefits and harms weighed when deciding if and how a socially consequential technology gets developed? The most natural way to answer this question, and in fact how people first approach it, is to compare the new technology to what used to exist. As such, in this work, I make comparative analyses between humans and machines in three scenarios and seek to understand how sentiment about a technology, performance of that technology, and the impacts of that technology combine to influence how one decides to answer my main research question.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 317 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Nov 2022.

Builds on

25 of 317 references.

References · 25

  1. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  2. 2016SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x fewer parameters and <0.5MB model sizecited by 1,054
  3. 2019Introduction to Multi-Armed Banditscited by 475
  4. 2018Deep Face Recognition: A Surveycited by 275
  5. 2014One weird trick for parallelizing convolutional neural networkscited by 264
  6. 2020Fairness without Demographics through Adversarially Reweighted Learningcited by 251
  7. 2015Censoring Representations with an Adversarycited by 191
  8. 2017Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair Representationscited by 165
  9. 2018xView: Objects in Context in Overhead Imagerycited by 145
  10. 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 139
  11. 2021Towards Measuring Fairness in AI: the Casual Conversations Datasetcited by 80
  12. 2018Achieving Fairness through Adversarial Learning: an Application to Recidivism Predictioncited by 77
13 more
  1. 2020ProportionNet: Balancing Fairness and Revenue for Auction Design with Deep Learningcited by 19
  2. 2020Minimax Group Fairness: Algorithms and Experimentscited by 17
  3. 2019Group Fairness in Bandit Arm Selectioncited by 12
  4. 2021Robustness Disparities in Commercial Face Detectioncited by 11
  5. 2022A Deep Dive into Dataset Imbalance and Bias in Face Identificationcited by 11
  6. 2017InclusiveFaceNet: Improving Face Attribute Detection with Race and Gender Diversitycited by 8
  7. 2021Comparing Human and Machine Bias in Face Recognitioncited by 8
  8. 2022Are Commercial Face Detection Models as Biased as Academic Models?cited by 3
  9. 2020The Affiliate Matching Problem: On Labor Markets where Firms are Also Interested in the Placement of Previous Workerscited by 2
  10. 2018Overhead Detection: Beyond 8-bits and RGBcited by 1
  11. 2020How good is good enough for COVID19 apps? The influence of benefits, accuracy, and privacy on willingness to adoptcited by 1
  12. 2020COVID-19 Contact-Tracing Mobile Apps: Evaluation and Assessment for Decision Makerscited by 1
  13. 2022The Dichotomous Affiliate Stable Matching Problem: Approval-Based Matching with Applicant-Employer Relationscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.