Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness

Author:

Green BenORCID

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

1. “Democratizing AI” and the Concern of Algorithmic Injustice;Philosophy & Technology;2024-08-14

2. From the Fair Distribution of Predictions to the Fair Distribution of Social Goods: Evaluating the Impact of Fair Machine Learning on Long-Term Unemployment;The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency;2024-06-03

3. Constructing Capabilities: The Politics of Testing Infrastructures for Generative AI;The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency;2024-06-03

4. Evidence of What, for Whom? The Socially Contested Role of Algorithmic Bias in a Predictive Policing Tool;The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency;2024-06-03

5. Structural Interventions and the Dynamics of Inequality;The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency;2024-06-03

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3