Portrait de Shalaleh Rismani n'est pas disponible

Shalaleh Rismani

Doctorat - McGill University
Superviseur⋅e principal⋅e

Publications

Beyond the ML Model: Applying Safety Engineering Frameworks to Text-to-Image Development
Shalaleh Rismani
Renee Shelby
Andrew J Smart
Renelito Delos Santos
Identifying potential social and ethical risks in emerging machine learning (ML) models and their applications remains challenging. In this … (voir plus)work, we applied two well-established safety engineering frameworks (FMEA, STPA) to a case study involving text-to-image models at three stages of the ML product development pipeline: data processing, integration of a T2I model with other models, and use. Results of our analysis demonstrate the safety frameworks – both of which are not designed explicitly examine social and ethical risks – can uncover failure and hazards that pose social and ethical risks. We discovered a broad range of failures and hazards (i.e., functional, social, and ethical) by analyzing interactions (i.e., between different ML models in the product, between the ML product and user, and between development teams) and processes (i.e., preparation of training data or workflows for using an ML service/product). Our findings underscore the value and importance of examining beyond an ML model in examining social and ethical risks, especially when we have minimal information about an ML model.
Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Renee Shelby
Shalaleh Rismani
Kathryn Henne
Paul Nicholas
N'Mah Yilla-Akbari
Jess Gallegos
Andrew J Smart
Emilio Garcia
Gurleen Virk
What does it mean to be a responsible AI practitioner: An ontology of roles and skills
Shalaleh Rismani
With the growing need to regulate AI systems across a wide variety of application domains, a new set of occupations has emerged in the indus… (voir plus)try. The so-called responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI) practitioners or AI ethicists are generally tasked with interpreting and operationalizing best practices for ethical and safe design of AI systems. Due to the nascent nature of these roles, however, it is unclear to future employers and aspiring AI ethicists what specific function these roles serve and what skills are necessary to serve the functions. Without clarity on these, we cannot train future AI ethicists with meaningful learning objectives. In this work, we examine what responsible AI practitioners do in the industry and what skills they employ on the job. We propose an ontology of existing roles alongside skills and competencies that serve each role. We created this ontology by examining the job postings for such roles over a two-year period (2020-2022) and conducting expert interviews with fourteen individuals who currently hold such a role in the industry. Our ontology contributes to business leaders looking to build responsible AI teams and provides educators with a set of competencies that an AI ethics curriculum can prioritize.
Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systems
Alan Chan
Rebecca Salganik
Alva Markelius
Chris Pang
Nitarshan Rajkumar
Dmitrii Krasheninnikov
Lauro Langosco
Zhonghao He
Yawen Duan
Micah Carroll
Michelle Lin
Alex Mayhew
Katherine Collins
Maryam Molamohammadi
John Burden
Wanru Zhao
Shalaleh Rismani
Konstantinos Voudouris
Umang Bhatt
Adrian Weller … (voir 2 de plus)
Research in Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE)1 has established many sources and forms of algorithmic harm, in domain… (voir plus)s as diverse as health care, finance, policing, and recommendations. Much work remains to be done to mitigate the serious harms of these systems, particularly those disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Despite these ongoing harms, new systems are being developed and deployed, typically without strong regulatory barriers, threatening the perpetuation of the same harms and the creation of novel ones. In response, the FATE community has emphasized the importance of anticipating harms, rather than just responding to them. Anticipation of harms is especially important given the rapid pace of developments in machine learning (ML). Our work focuses on the anticipation of harms from increasingly agentic systems. Rather than providing a definition of agency as a binary property, we identify 4 key characteristics which, particularly in combination, tend to increase the agency of a given algorithmic system: underspecification, directness of impact, goal-directedness, and long-term planning. We also discuss important harms which arise from increasing agency – notably, these include systemic and/or long-range impacts, often on marginalized or unconsidered stakeholders. We emphasize that recognizing agency of algorithmic systems does not absolve or shift the human responsibility for algorithmic harms. Rather, we use the term agency to highlight the increasingly evident fact that ML systems are not fully under human control. Our work explores increasingly agentic algorithmic systems in three parts. First, we explain the notion of an increase in agency for algorithmic systems in the context of diverse perspectives on agency across disciplines. Second, we argue for the need to anticipate harms from increasingly agentic systems. Third, we discuss important harms from increasingly agentic systems and ways forward for addressing them. We conclude by reflecting on implications of our work for anticipating algorithmic harms from emerging systems.
From Plane Crashes to Algorithmic Harm: Applicability of Safety Engineering Frameworks for Responsible ML
Shalaleh Rismani
Renee Shelby
Andrew J Smart
Edgar Jatho
Joshua A. Kroll
Roboethics as a Design Challenge: Lessons Learned from the Roboethics to Design and Development Competition
Jimin Rhim
Cheng Lin
Alexander Werner
Brandon DeHart
Vivian Qiang
Shalaleh Rismani
How do we make concrete progress towards de-signing robots that can navigate ethically sensitive contexts? Almost two decades after the word… (voir plus) ‘roboethics’ was coined, translating interdisciplinary roboethics discussions into techni-cal design still remains a daunting task. This paper describes our first attempt at addressing these challenges through a roboethics-themed design competition. The design competition setting allowed us to (a) formulate ethical considerations as an engineering design task that anyone with basic programming skills can tackle; and (b) develop a prototype evaluation scheme that incorporates diverse normative perspectives of multiple stakeholders. The initial implementation of the competition was held online at the RO-MAN 2021 conference. The competition task involved programming a simulated mobile robot (TIAGo) that delivers items for individuals in the home environment, where many of these tasks involve ethically sensitive con-texts (e.g., an underage family member asks for an alcoholic drink). This paper outlines our experiences implementing the competition and the lessons we learned. We highlight design competitions as a promising mechanism to enable a new wave of roboethics research equipped with technical design solutions.
Sociotechnical Harms: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Renee Shelby
Shalaleh Rismani
Kathryn Henne
Paul Nicholas
N'mah Fodiatu Yilla
Jess Gallegos
Andrew J Smart
Emilio Garcia
Gurleen Virk
What does it mean to be an AI Ethicist: An ontology of existing roles
Shalaleh Rismani
With the increasing adoption of Artificial Intelligence systems (AIS) in various application and the growing efforts to regulate such system… (voir plus)s, a new set of occupations has emerged in the industry. This new set of roles take different titles and hold varying responsibilities. However, the individuals in these roles are tasked with interpreting and operationalizing best practices for developing ethical and safe AI systems. We will broadly refer to this new set of occupations as AI ethicists and recognize that they often hold a specific role in the intersection of technology development, business needs, and societal implications. In this work, we examine what it means to be an AI ethicist in the industry and propose an ontology of existing roles under this broad title along with their required competencies. We create this ontology by examining the job postings for such roles over the past two years and conduct expert interviews with fourteen individuals who currently hold such a role in the industry. The proposed ontology will inform executives and leaders who are looking to build responsible AI teams and provide educators the necessary information for creating new learning objectives and curriculum.
What does it mean to be an AI Ethicist: An ontology of existing roles
Shalaleh Rismani
With the increasing adoption of Artificial Intelligence systems (AIS) in various application and the growing efforts to regulate such system… (voir plus)s, a new set of occupations has emerged in the industry. This new set of roles take different titles and hold varying responsibilities. However, the individuals in these roles are tasked with interpreting and operationalizing best practices for developing ethical and safe AI systems. We will broadly refer to this new set of occupations as AI ethicists and recognize that they often hold a specific role in the intersection of technology development, business needs, and societal implications. In this work, we examine what it means to be an AI ethicist in the industry and propose an ontology of existing roles under this broad title along with their required competencies. We create this ontology by examining the job postings for such roles over the past two years and conduct expert interviews with fourteen individuals who currently hold such a role in the industry. The proposed ontology will inform executives and leaders who are looking to build responsible AI teams and provide educators the necessary information for creating new learning objectives and curriculum.
How do AI systems fail socially?: an engineering risk analysis approach
Shalaleh Rismani
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) has been used as an engineering risk assessment tool since 1949. FMEAs are effective in preemptively… (voir plus) identifying and addressing how a device or process might fail in operation and are often used in the design of high-risk technology applications such as military, automotive industry and medical devices. In this work, we explore whether FMEAs can serve as a risk assessment tool for machine learning practitioners, especially in deploying systems for high-risk applications (e.g. algorithms for recidivism assessment). In particular, we discuss how FMEAs can be used to identify social and ethical failures of Artificial Intelligent Systemss (AISs), recognizing that FMEAs have the potential to uncover a broader range of failures. We first propose a process for developing a Social FMEAs (So-FMEAs) by building on the existing FMEAs framework and a recently published definition of Social Failure Modes by Millar. We then demonstrate a simple proof-of-concept, So-FMEAs for the COMPAS algorithm, a risk assessment tool used by judges to make recidivism-related decisions for convicted individuals. Through this preliminary investigation, we illustrate how a traditional engineering risk management tool could be adapted for analyzing social and ethical failures of AIS. Engineers and designers of AISs can use this new approach to improve their system's design and perform due diligence with respect to potential ethical and social failures.
Ethics of Corporeal, Co-present Robots as Agents of Influence: a Review
Shalaleh Rismani
H. V. D. Van der Loos
Driver perceptions of advanced driver assistance systems and safety
Sophie Le Page
Jason Millar
Kelly Selina Bronson
Shalaleh Rismani
Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are often used in the automotive industry to highlight innovative improvements in vehicle safety. … (voir plus)However, today it is unclear whether certain automation (e.g., adaptive cruise control, lane keeping, parking assist) increases safety of our roads. In this paper, we investigate driver awareness, use, perceived safety, knowledge, training, and attitudes toward ADAS with different automation systems/features. Results of our online survey (n=1018) reveal that there is a significant difference in frequency of use and perceived safety for different ADAS features. Furthermore, we find that at least 70% of drivers activate an ADAS feature"most or all of the time"when driving, yet we find that at least 40% of drivers report feeling that ADAS often compromises their safety when activated. We also find that most respondents learn how to use ADAS in their vehicles by trying it out on the road by themselves, rather than through any formal driver education and training. These results may mirror how certain ADAS features are often activated by default resulting in high usage rates. These results also suggest a lack of driver training and education for safely interacting with, and operating, ADAS, such as turning off systems/features. These findings contribute to a critical discussion about the overall safety implications of current ADAS, especially as they enable higher-level automation features to creep into personal vehicles without a lockstep response in training, regulation, and policy.