镜像与花园之辩:算法歧视争议下的价值目标与伦理实践——基于工程师的访谈

黄阳坤, 俞雅芸

国际新闻界 ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (10) : 91-111.

PDF(1753 KB)
PDF(1753 KB)
国际新闻界 ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (10) : 91-111.
研究论文

镜像与花园之辩:算法歧视争议下的价值目标与伦理实践——基于工程师的访谈

作者信息 +

Mirror world or bias-free garden: Exploring ethical goals and practices in the context of algorithmic discrimination

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

算法歧视现象构成个人数字化生存的伦理挑战。通过访谈22位国内算法工程师,本研究从技术的社会建构视角出发,探讨了他们的价值目标和伦理实践如何作用于有偏算法系统之产生、发展与应用。研究发现,算法歧视与工程师对真实和准确的理解、追求有关——他们试图打造“镜像世界”时,以数据、社会、统计因果等为“求真”的依归,最终导致了歧视的加固与强化;同时,面向算法公平和正义的算法“向善”,被“求真求准”的价值目标和特定业务目标不断挤压;工程师所受教育和所处组织环境,让他们认为“求善”并非他们的职责。加上公平等伦理概念本身难以量化,更为建设“数字花园”制造了技术难度。这些都让“求善”沦为工程师的一种弹性选择,影响了他们“去偏”和“消歧”的伦理实践方案。这一研究为理解算法歧视提供了来自工程师伦理层面的实证依据,为理解有偏算法的社会建构提供了基于中国语境的业内见解。

Abstract

Algorithmic discrimination poses a danger to the individual’s digital survival. Based upon semi-structural interviews with 22 algorithm engineers, this study explores how engineers’ ethical values and judgments are embedded in the discriminatory algorithm from the perspective of the social construction of technology. The study finds that algorithmic discrimination can be attributed to engineers’ understanding and pursuit of reality and accuracy—for building the mirror world, they rely on data records, social reality and statistical causality, eventually leading to the reinforcement of discrimination. Besides, for engineers, their goal of algorithmic fairness is constantly squeezed by their ethic goal of seeking reality and accuracy with certain business goals. And engineers are always educated and work in the orientation that making a bias-free digital garden isn’t an obligatory target for them. What’s more, quantifying ethical concepts like fairness remains a technical obstacle for algorithmic workers. All these make “algorithm for good” a flexible choice for engineers, finally defining their practice to debias. This study provides an empirical window for understanding algorithmic discrimination, as well as detailed and professional insights into the construction of biased technologies in Chinese context.

关键词

算法歧视 / 算法伦理 / 技术的社会建构 / 工程师伦理 / 伦理实践

Key words

algorithmic discrimination / algorithmic ethics / social construction of technology / engineering ethics / ethical practices

引用本文

导出引用
黄阳坤, 俞雅芸. 镜像与花园之辩:算法歧视争议下的价值目标与伦理实践——基于工程师的访谈[J]. 国际新闻界. 2023, 45(10): 91-111
HUANG Yangkun, YU Yayun. Mirror world or bias-free garden: Exploring ethical goals and practices in the context of algorithmic discrimination[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2023, 45(10): 91-111

参考文献

[1]
陈昌凤, 师文(2018). 个性化新闻推荐算法的技术解读与价值探讨. 《中国编辑》,(10),9-14.
[2]
陈昌凤(2021). 数据主义之于新闻传播:影响、解构与利用. 《新闻界》,(11),4-13+31.
[3]
《辞海》编辑委员会(2021). 《辞海》(第七版).检索于 https://www.cihai.com.cn/baike/detail/72/5453858?q=伦理.
[4]
戴宇辰(2021). 传播研究与STS如何相遇:以“技术的社会建构”路径为核心的讨论. 《新闻大学》,(4),15-27+119.
[5]
段伟文(2000). 技术的价值负载与伦理反思. 《自然辩证法研究》,(8),30-33+54.
[6]
古天龙, 马露, 李龙, 闫茹(2022). 符合伦理的人工智能应用的价值敏感设计:现状与展望. 《智能系统学报》,(1),2-15.
[7]
李建华(2021). 《道德原理——道德学引论》. 北京: 社会科学文献出版.
[8]
刘培, 池忠军(2019). 算法的伦理问题及其解决进路. 《东北大学学报(社会科学版)》,(2),118-125.
[9]
刘友华(2019). 算法偏见及其规制路径研究. 《法学杂志》,(6),55-66.
[10]
孙萍(2021). 算法化生存:技术、人与主体性. 《探索与争鸣》,(3),16-18.
[11]
塔娜, 林聪(2023). 点击搜索之前:针对搜索引擎自动补全算法偏见的实证研究. 《国际新闻界》,(8),132-154.
[12]
王婧雯, 马歆, 孙丽君(2022). 溯源计算机领域从业者性别失衡, 助力下一代女性计算机人才成长.检索于 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/a9ztq57lhlGidWo_gOzl9g.
[13]
吴飞(2022). 数字媒介平台伦理问题与系统治理. 《国家治理周刊》,(7),20-25.
[14]
许向东, 王怡溪(2020). 智能传播中算法偏见的成因、影响与对策. 《国际新闻界》,(10),69-85.
[15]
严三九, 袁帆(2019). 局内的外人:新闻传播领域算法工程师的伦理责任考察. 《现代传播》,(9),1-5+12.
[16]
喻国明, 丁汉青, 刘彧晗(2022). 媒介何往:媒介演进的逻辑、机制与未来可能——从5G时代到元宇宙的嬗变. 《新闻大学》,(1),96-104+124.
[17]
袁帆, 严三九(2020). 模糊的算法伦理水平——基于传媒业269名算法工程师的实证研究. 《新闻大学》,(5),112-124+129.
[18]
张莉莉, 朱子升(2021). 算法歧视的法律规制:动因、路径和制度完善. 《科技与法律(中英文)》,(2),15-21.
[19]
张玉宏, 秦志光, 肖乐(2017). 大数据算法的歧视本质. 《自然辩证法研究》,(5),81-86.
[20]
American Psychological Association. (2019). Discrimination: What it is and how to cope. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/racism-bias-discrimination/types-stress.
[21]
Association of Nordic Engineers. (2018). Nordic engineers’ stand on Artificial Intelligence and ethics report. Retrieved from https://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/IDA/ane/report/.
[22]
Avnoon N., Kotliar D. M., & Rivnai-Bahir S. (2023). Contextualizing the ethics of algorithms: A socio-professional approach. New Media & Society. Advace online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444822114572.
[23]
Balkin J. M. (2017). The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data. Ohio State Law Journal, 78, 1217-1241.
[24]
Bijker W. E., Hughes T. P., & Pinch T. (1989). The Social Construction of Technology Systems:New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[25]
Caliskan A., Bryson J., & Narayanan A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183-186.
\n AlphaGo has demonstrated that a machine can learn how to do things that people spend many years of concentrated study learning, and it can rapidly learn how to do them better than any human can. Caliskan\n et al.\n now show that machines can learn word associations from written texts and that these associations mirror those learned by humans, as measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (see the Perspective by Greenwald). Why does this matter? Because the IAT has predictive value in uncovering the association between concepts, such as pleasantness and flowers or unpleasantness and insects. It can also tease out attitudes and beliefs—for example, associations between female names and family or male names and career. Such biases may not be expressed explicitly, yet they can prove influential in behavior.\n
[26]
Chander A. (2016). The racist algorithm?. Michigan Law Review, 115(6), 1023-1045.
[27]
Di D. (2023). Ethical ambiguity and complexity: Tech workers’ perceptions of big data ethics in China and the US. Information, Communication & Society, 26(5), 957-973.
[28]
Gelernter D. (1993). Mirror Worlds:or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[29]
Gillespie T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P., & Foot, K. (Eds.). Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society(pp. 167-194). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
[30]
Just N., & Latzer M. (2017). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the Internet. Media, Culture & Society, 39(2), 238-258.
[31]
Kitchin R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29.
[32]
Kotliar M. (2021). Who gets to choose? On the socio-algorithmic construction of choice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46(2), 346-375.
[33]
Krefting L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
Despite a growing interest in qualitative research in occupational therapy, little attention has been placed on establishing its rigor. This article presents one model that can be used for the assessment of trustworthiness or merit of qualitative inquiry. Guba’s (1981) model describes four general criteria for evaluation of research and then defines each from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective. Several strategies for the achievement of rigor in qualitative research useful for both researchers and consumers of research are described.
[34]
Lippert-Rasmussen K. (2013). Born Free and Equal?: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Discrimination. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[35]
Mittelstadt B. D., Allo P., Taddeo M., Wachter S., & Floridi L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
[36]
Noorman M. (2023). Computing and moral responsibility. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computing-responsibility/.
[37]
Orr W., & Davis L. (2020). Attributions of ethical responsibility by Artificial Intelligence practitioners. Information, Communication & Society, 23(5), 719-735.
[38]
Oxford University Press. (2017). Oxford Learner’s Dictionary of Academic English. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/academic/ethic?q=ethics.
[39]
Papakyriakopoulos O., & Mboya A. M. (2023). Beyond algorithmic bias: a socio-computational interrogation of the google search by image algorithm. Social Science Computer Review, 41(4), 1100-1125.
We perform a socio-computational interrogation of the google search by image algorithm, a main component of the google search engine. We audit the algorithm by presenting it with more than 40 thousands faces of all ages and more than four races and collecting and analyzing the assigned labels with the appropriate statistical tools. We find that the algorithm reproduces white male patriarchal structures, often simplifying, stereotyping and discriminating females and non-white individuals, while providing more positive descriptions of white men. By drawing from Bourdieu’s theory of cultural reproduction, we link these results to the attitudes of the algorithm’s designers, owners, and the dataset the algorithm was trained on. We further underpin the problematic nature of the algorithm by using the ethnographic practice of studying-up: We show how the algorithm places individuals at the top of the tech industry within the socio-cultural reality that they shaped, many times creating biased representations of them. We claim that the use of social-theoretic frameworks such as the above are able to contribute to improved algorithmic accountability, algorithmic impact assessment and provide additional and more critical depth in algorithmic bias and auditing studies. Based on the analysis, we discuss the scientific and design implications and provide suggestions for alternative ways to design just socio-algorithmic systems.
[40]
Pietsch W. (2016). The causal nature of modeling with big data. Philosophy & Technology, 29(2), 137-171.
[41]
Pinch T. (2012). The social construction of technology: A review. In Fox, A. (Ed.). Technological Change: Methods and Themes in the History of Technology (pp.17-36). Amsterdam, NL: Harwood Academic Publishers.
[42]
Qureshi B., Kamiran F., Karim A., Ruggieri S., & Pedreschi D. (2020). Causal inference for social discrimination reasoning. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 54(2), 425-437.
[43]
Ryan M., Christodoulou E., Antoniou J., & Iordanou K. (2022). An AI ethics “David and Goliath”: value conflicts between large tech companies and their employees. AI & Society, 1-16.
[44]
Seaver N. (2018). What should an anthropology of algorithms do?. Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), 375-385.
[45]
Seaver N. (2021). Care and scale: Decorrelative ethics in algorithmic recommendation. Cultural Anthropology, 36(3), 509-537.
[46]
Shklovski I., & Némethy C. (2023). Nodes of certainty and spaces for doubt in AI ethics for engineers. Information, Communication & Society, 26(1), 37-53.
[47]
Woolgar S. (1987). Reconstruction man and machine: A note on sociological critiques of cognitivism. In Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). The Social Construction of Technology Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 311-329) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

基金

国家社科基金重大项目“智能时代的信息价值观引领研究”(18ZDA307)

PDF(1753 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/