Abstract
AbstractEfforts to promote equitable public policy with algorithms appear to be fundamentally constrained by the “impossibility of fairness” (an incompatibility between mathematical definitions of fairness). This technical limitation raises a central question about algorithmic fairness: How can computer scientists and policymakers support equitable policy reforms with algorithms? In this article, I argue that promoting justice with algorithms requires reforming the methodology of algorithmic fairness. First, I diagnose the problems of the current methodology for algorithmic fairness, which I call “formal algorithmic fairness.” Because formal algorithmic fairness restricts analysis to isolated decision-making procedures, it leads to the impossibility of fairness and to models that exacerbate oppression despite appearing “fair.” Second, I draw on theories of substantive equality from law and philosophy to propose an alternative methodology, which I call “substantive algorithmic fairness.” Because substantive algorithmic fairness takes a more expansive scope of analysis, it enables an escape from the impossibility of fairness and provides a rigorous guide for alleviating injustice with algorithms. In sum, substantive algorithmic fairness presents a new direction for algorithmic fairness: away from formal mathematical models of “fair” decision-making and toward substantive evaluations of whether and how algorithms can promote justice in practice.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Philosophy
Reference126 articles.
1. 115th United States Congress. (2017). S.1593 - Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act of 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1593. Accessed 4 Oct 2022
2. 116th United States Congress. (2019). H.R.2231 - Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2231. Accessed 4 Oct 2022
3. Abebe, R., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., Levy, K., Raghavan, M., & Robinson, D. G. (2020). Roles for computing in social change. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372871
4. Albright, A. (2019). If you give a judge a risk score: evidence from Kentucky bail decisions. https://thelittledataset.com/about_files/albright_judge_score.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2022
5. Anderson, E. S. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2), 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1086/233897
Cited by
28 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献