Search results

Along with the various beneficial uses of artificial intelligence (AI), there are various unsavory concomitants including the inscrutability of AI tools (and the opaqueness of their mechanisms), the fragility of AI models under adversarial settings, the vulnerability of AI models to bias throughout their pipeline, the high planetary cost of running large AI models and the emergence of exploitative surveillance capitalism-based economic logic built on AI technology. This study aims to document these harms of AI technology and study how these technologies and their developers and users can be made more accountable.

Due to the nature of the problem, a holistic, multi-pronged approach is required to understand and counter these potential harms. This paper identifies the rationale for urgently focusing on human-centered AI and provide an outlook of promising directions including technical proposals.

AI has the potential to benefit the entire society, but there remains an increased risk for vulnerable segments of society. This paper provides a general survey of the various approaches proposed in the literature to make AI technology more accountable. This paper reports that the development of ethical accountable AI design requires the confluence and collaboration of many fields (ethical, philosophical, legal, political and technical) and that lack of diversity is a problem plaguing the state of the art in AI.

This paper provides a timely synthesis of the various technosocial proposals in the literature spanning technical areas such as interpretable and explainable AI; algorithmic auditability; as well as policy-making challenges and efforts that can operationalize ethical AI and help in making AI accountable. This paper also identifies and shares promising future directions of research.

Research on employee non-/compliance to information security policies suffers from inconsistent results and there is an ongoing discussion about the dominating survey research methodology and its potential effect on these results. This study aims to add to this discussion by investigating discrepancies between what the authors claim to measure (theoretical properties of variables) and what they actually measure (respondents’ interpretations of the operationalized variables). This study asks: How well do respondents’ interpretations of variables correspond to their theoretical definitions? What are the characteristics of any discrepancies between variable definitions and respondent interpretations?

This study is based on in-depth interviews with 17 respondents from the Swedish public sector to understand how they interpret questionnaire measurement items operationalizing the variables Perceived Severity from Protection Motivation Theory and Attitude from Theory of Planned Behavior.

The authors found that respondents’ interpretations in many cases differ substantially from the theoretical definitions. Overall, the authors found four principal ways in which respondents interpreted measurement items – referred to as property contextualization, extension, alteration and oscillation – each implying more or less (dis)alignment with the intended theoretical properties of the two variables examined.

The qualitative method used proved vital to better understand respondents’ interpretations which, in turn, is key for improving self-reporting measurement instruments. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is a first step toward understanding how precise and uniform definitions of variables’ theoretical properties can be operationalized into effective measurement items.