Ver el código de «2018 - PD manifesto for AI futures - Daria Loi ,Thomas Lodato, Christine T. Wolf, Raphael Arar & Jeanette Blomberg»

== <small>'''Texto'''</small> ==

'''ABSTRACT'''

A deep discussion and reflection on the implications surrounding
the design, development, and deployment of what are being
described as artificially intelligent systems is urgent. We propose
that within this context, Participatory Design, not only has much
to offer, it has a responsibility to deeply engage. This workshop
brings together practitioners and researchers from diverse
disciplinary backgrounds to discuss and reflect on the cultural,
ethical, political, and social implications surrounding the design,
development, and deployment of intelligent systems and to
explore participatory design approaches, tools, and guidelines
that should ground the design of intelligent systems.

'''CCS CONCEPTS'''

•Human-centered computing → Interaction Design → Participatory design.

'''KEYWORDS'''

Artificial Intelligence; intelligent systems; ethical implications.

CONTEXT

Intelligent Systems – those that leverage the power of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) – are set to transform the way we live and
experience the world. From domains as diverse as healthcare,
manufacturing, transportation, finance, and agriculture, hardly a
news cycle goes by without mention of novel AI applications
offering the promise of a transformed future – one where lives
are enriched through new knowledge and insights and relieved
of the burdens of mundane and tedious activities of today.

While these AI systems already are having an impact on us
through scripted automation and transactions (e.g. factory
automation or heath/financial transactions), the need for and
focus on assistive systems targeting more complex and diverse
socio-political contexts is increasing. These sophisticated
systems often rely on unscripted, autonomous transactions and
play active roles in a person’s life. This poses serious challenges
– challenges that increase even further when such systems
include affective or human-like attributes (e.g. digital assistants)
and when they become integral part of the environments we
inhabit daily (e.g. home, office, school, vehicle, city, etc.). While

AI advances are purported to hold great promise for societal
progress, they also beckon careful consideration to the ethical
questions and challenges raised in their wake. For every piece
extolling a hopeful future for AI, there is equal comeback
debating the broader repercussions of these developments and
how the impacts of AI will be felt across ecosystems of use.

Indeed, as these systems continue to be developed, overlapping
concerns are accelerating and becoming mainstream—from fears
of jobs replacement to the emergence of surveillance states
to deeply unequal societies, to name a few. At the core of
such concerns is the realization that AI may challenge, if not
threaten, the fundamentals of human and social behavior and the
very foundations of our society. As Bostrom and Yudkowsky
point out, “although current AI offers us few ethical issues that
are not already present in the design of cars or power plants, the approach of AI algorithms toward more humanlike thought
portends predictable complication”. Additionally, while we could
build a “superintelligence that would protect human values”, the
“problem of how to control what the superintelligence would do”
looks rather difficult and, within this context, designers and
technologists have key roles, agencies, and responsibilities.

In brief, while intelligent systems will increasingly populate the
global landscape, there are a number of unaddressed social,
behavioral, political, decisional, and moral questions. Put simply,
the design and development of AI-based intelligent systems
present core dilemmas related to the fundamentals of human and
social behavior. The focus of large-scale collaborations across
academia and industry like DeepMind Ethics & Society, AI
Now Institute, and the “Prosperity Through AI” Pillar of
MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the ethical implications of AI (or
“AI+Ethics”) presents one of the most pressing contemporary
problems we face today.

AI and intelligent systems are in desperate need for ethical as
well as design guidelines. While AI has greatly evolved from a
technical point of view, it is in its infancy as far as ethics and
design process goes. The challenge of AI is, therefore, not only a
technical one, it is first and foremost a social, cultural, political,
and ethical one. Jake Metcalf articulates the issues well when he
states that “more social scientists are using AI intending to solve
society’s ills, but they don’t have clear ethical guidelines to
prevent them from accidentally harming people (...). There aren’t
consistent standards or transparent review practices”. In
other words, the complexity of these systems and the
obfuscation of their processes makes critical reflection difficult
for many, erodes considered public debate, and makes oversight
hard, if not impossible.

At the root of the debate are a slew of questions about the roles,
responsibilities, and accountabilities related to AI and intelligent
systems. These include:

*What level of autonomy/agency should these systems
have?

*What level of transparency should be provided to end
users?

*What social and behavioral contracts should underpin
human-machine interaction with such systems?

*What methods should be used to design unobtrusive,
effective, accurate, respectful, intuitive and transparent
systems?

*What ethical considerations should drive designers and
developers when making technical and design
decisions?

*How will these systems impact societies and the
fundamentals of everyday life?

*What is the responsibility of public institutions to
understand, disclose, govern, and regulate the use,
reach, and actions of artificial intelligence and
intelligent systems they and others create, employ, and
leverage?

*In what contexts and through what means are artificial
intelligence and intelligent systems deemed
inappropriate?

*In what ways can dialogues between diverse
stakeholders across AI ecosystems be fruitfully started,
especially given the different stakes, experiences,
literacies, values, and priorities of those involved?

The AI ethics debate has been— and still is—dominated by two
forces: data science on one side, social science and humanities on
the other. On both sides sit experts. Barocas and Boyd well
articulate such a polarization, adding that “the gaps between
data scientists and critics are wide, but critique divorced from
practice only increases them”. Barocas and Boyd’s “practice”
should be extended to include end users’ everyday life expertise.
End users need ways to actively participate in the AI debate and
related decision making. These two perspectives, though vital,
overlook the means through which AI and intelligent systems
get developed. As such, their focus is on the final form and use
of such systems, rather than the relationship between this form
and use and the terms and means of design.

Along these lines, the design community—and particularly, the
participatory design community—has the professional, moral,
and ethical responsibility to engage with the debate over AI and
intelligent systems. As shapers of more democratic futures—
regardless of their provisionality —participatory design
practitioners must weigh in. Given their technical complexity,
these futures are often illegible to many people who are directly
affected by and implicated in such systems. A future enriched
and enabled by intelligent-yet-trustworthy systems requires
careful implementation of guidelines that govern the actions of
those in charge of deciding what to design, how, why and what
data to feed into a given system. This future requires more than
expert critique, but also the involvement of those subject to its
execution.

Though different in kind, the dilemmas presented by AI and
intelligent systems are familiar to the strategies and theories of
participatory design. With the consideration of the relation
between designed products, services, and systems and the
societies that produce them and they produce participatory design provides a domain and set of techniques
that actively negotiate the use, bounds, and terms of AI and
intelligent systems. As such, through participatory design, AI
and intelligent systems stand to gain important form, function,
and clarity.

'''GOALS'''

Within the above-described context, this workshop aims at
identifying the roles that participatory design could play in the
design of AI systems. The workshop provides a reflective and
hands-on context to debate, prototype, and develop the place of
participatory design in the creation of AI and intelligent systems.
Possible questions to consider include:

*What might a participatory AI design process look like?

*How might we measure and evaluate the impact of
such a process, especially given the variable
temporalities at play (e.g. user interaction stories and
touchpoints; product development and releases; news
and PR cycles; economic forecasting/labor earnings;
legal/regulatory processes; professional/career
timelines; etc.)?

*What are PD practitioners’ roles and responsibilities in
this complex and challenging context?

*What PD approaches may advance the design and
development of AI systems that are unobtrusive,
effective, accurate, respectful, intuitive, and
transparent?

*What participatory approaches may help address the
described issues while enabling sustainable business
models and technological development?

*What is the role of PD in AI standards development?

*What role can PD play in educational contexts to
ensure future AI designers are grounded in human-
centric values?

A deep discussion and reflection on the implications surrounding
the design, development and deployment of intelligent systems
is urgent—we propose that within this context PD not only has
much to offer, but it has a responsibility to deeply engage.
The workshop aims at bringing together practitioners and
researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds to discuss and
reflect on the cultural, ethical, and social implications
surrounding the design, development, and deployment of
intelligent system and to explore PD approaches, tools, and
guidelines that should ground the design of intelligent and
affective systems.

'''OUTCOMES'''

As key outcome of this workshop, participants will design and
construct an actionable PD Manifesto for AI Futures. The
manifesto will be shared with conference attendees by displaying
it in a walk-by location to be agreed on with conference chairs.
Additionally, the manifesto and key insights generated
throughout the workshop will be uploaded in the workshop
website and advertised through diverse channels. Finally, since
some of the organizers have recently run workshops on AI
futures in diverse contexts and with different stakeholders, we
anticipate that key insights from the varied experiences may be
articulated in a scholarly article which will be shared with the
community once published. Through this multi-pronged
approach, we aim to advance the field on how these dilemmas
are seen and addressed across diverse disciplines.

'''APPROACH, AUDIENCE AND SCHEDULE'''

The workshop adopts a hand-on approach to enable participants
to co-design and co-construct a PD Manifesto for AI Futures.
From an attendance perspective, the minimum number of
participants is 6 and the maximum is 20, with flexibility to
accommodate a few more if there is a substantial interest. Given its topic, objectives, and hands-on nature, the workshop works
best as a full day activity. Organizers have prior experience
running workshops, including PDC workshops [17, 18, 19, 20].
Recruitment will rely on a custom-website, designed to publicize
workshop activities, outline steps necessary for participation and
offer the call for participation as well as useful resources.
Additionally, we will advertise the workshop via design, social
science, and HCI mailing lists, including PHDDesign;
AnthroDesign; PDWorld; Engineering4Society; EPICPEOPLE.
Furthermore, we will directly reach out to researchers and
practitioners in our organizations as well as professional
networks and university departments that offer classes focused
on AI, Machine Learning, Anthropology, Social Science, Ethics
and Design.

In the call for participation, each participant will be asked to
submit a short (1-2 pages) position paper that includes:

*Outline of personal interest and experience in AI and
its ethical dimensions;

*Initial response to the provocations and themes
outlined in the call; and

*Perspectives on the role that PD could play in AI design and development.

We anticipate the following recruitment timeline:

*March 20, 2018: launch website and start recruitment

*May 15, 2018: position papers due

*May 25, 2018: notification of acceptance to participants

*August 2018: workshop takes place at PDC2018

Once workshop participants are confirmed, we will facilitate
pre-workshop conversations among participants, enabling them
to access each other’s position statements, through the
workshop website. This will establish a sense of team and help
participants feel more equipped to work collaboratively and
engage in co-design activities during the workshop.
Additionally, to ensure that debate and activities are grounded in
prior thinking, participants will be equipped with pre-workshop
materials, again through the workshop website.

The workshop will start with a facilitated discussion and sharing
of all position statements. This first part will include a clustering
activity to organize participants’ thinking and perspectives in
thematic areas that may advance subsequent hands-on exercises.
After this first part, facilitators will provide a range of design
tools and provocations to engage participants in hands-on co-
design activities throughout the rest of the day. Specifically,
participants will first engage in a curated team activity focused
on addressing challenges and provocations within a specific
provided context (i.e., case studies circulated that focus on one of
five themes: home, travel, work, healthcare, and learning).
Provocations include reflections on the role of PD, AI biases,
potential for AI-centric discrimination, and issues surrounding
the design of collaborative human-machine interactions. This
first activity is designed to collaboratively generate insights,
identify gaps and opportunities, and to advance each
participant’s understanding of the workshop themes.
The knowledge and learning accumulated during the first
activity will be then used by participants to co-create a manifesto with specific actions to be considered when designing
AI futures with a PD-centric approach. The manifesto is meant
to act as a practical list of actions (e.g. must-do, should-do, must-
avoid), offered to PD practitioners who operate in AI-centric
environments.

A tentative workshop schedule includes:

•8.45-9.15am – Introductions, ice-breaker and settle in
•9.15-9.30am – Outline of workshop goals
•9.30-10.15am – Position statements overview
•10.15-10.30am – Break
•10.30-11.30am – Emerging key themes clustering
•11.30am-12pm – Intro to manifesto design activities
•12-1pm – lunch
•1-3.30pm – Co-design activities and manifesto
development
•3.30-4.30pm – Presentations and final discussion

'''WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS'''

Daria Loi (PhD) is Principal Engineer in Intel Labs. Her work
focuses on the design and user experience of intelligent systems;
multimodal, tangible and ambient computing; and smart spaces –
with a specific passion for spaces that foster social
connectedness.

Thomas Lodato (PhD) is Research Scientist at the Georgia
Institute of Technology in the Institute for People and
Technology (IPAT) and the Center for Urban Innovation. His
research focuses on the future of work and smart cities as well as
civic technology.

Christine T. Wolf (PhD) is a Research Staff Member at IBM
Almaden Research Center. Primarily ethnographic in nature, her
current work focuses on the incorporation of data analytics into
organizational work practices.

Raphael Arar (MFA) is a Designer & Researcher at IBM
Research, Adjunct Faculty at San Jose State University and Board
Member of Leonardo/The International Society for the Arts,
Sciences and Technology. His work focuses on the complexities
of human-machine relationships.

Jeanette Blomberg (PhD) is Principal Research Staff Member at
the IBM Almaden Research Center and Adjunct Professor at
Roskilde University. Her research focuses on organizational
analytics and the linkages between human action, digital data
production, data analytics, and business or societal outcomes.

== <small>'''Contexto'''</small> ==

== <small>'''Autoras'''</small> ==

== <small>'''Fuentes'''</small> ==

== <small>'''Enlaces'''</small> ==

'''URL:''' https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3210604.3210614

'''Wayback Machine:''' https://web.archive.org/web/20220504200553/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3210604.3210614

[[Categoría:Manifiestos]]
[[Categoría:Inglés]]
[[Categoría:Estados Unidos]]
[[Categoría:2018]]
[[Categoría:Daria Loi]]
[[Categoría:Thomas Lodato]]
[[Categoría:Christine T. Wolf]]
[[Categoría:Raphael Arar]]
[[Categoría:Jeanette Blomberg]]