REVIEW 3 cited by
AHA!: Facilitating AI Impact Assessment by Generating Examples of Harms
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
While demands for change and accountability for harmful AI consequences mount, foreseeing the downstream effects of deploying AI systems remains a challenging task. We developed AHA! (Anticipating Harms of AI), a generative framework to assist AI practitioners and decision-makers in anticipating potential harms and unintended consequences of AI systems prior to development or deployment. Given an AI deployment scenario, AHA! generates descriptions of possible harms for different stakeholders. To do so, AHA! systematically considers the interplay between common problematic AI behaviors as well as their potential impacts on different stakeholders, and narrates these conditions through vignettes. These vignettes are then filled in with descriptions of possible harms by prompting crowd workers and large language models. By examining 4113 harms surfaced by AHA! for five different AI deployment scenarios, we found that AHA! generates meaningful examples of harms, with different problematic AI behaviors resulting in different types of harms. Prompting both crowds and a large language model with the vignettes resulted in more diverse examples of harms than those generated by either the crowd or the model alone. To gauge AHA!'s potential practical utility, we also conducted semi-structured interviews with responsible AI professionals (N=9). Participants found AHA!'s systematic approach to surfacing harms important for ethical reflection and discovered meaningful stakeholders and harms they believed they would not have thought of otherwise. Participants, however, differed in their opinions about whether AHA! should be used upfront or as a secondary-check and noted that AHA! may shift harm anticipation from an ideation problem to a potentially demanding review problem. Drawing on our results, we discuss design implications of building tools to help practitioners envision possible harms.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Informing AI Policy Assessment using Large-Scale Simulation of Interventions
A genetic algorithm optimizes weighted combinations of LLM-perceived harm mitigation, expert costs, and participatory scores over stakeholder-action pairs to surface viable AI policy packages for media harms.
-
Impact Assessment Card: Communicating Risks and Benefits of AI Uses
In an online study of 235 people, a compact 'Impact Assessment Card' for AI systems outperformed a full written report on speed, email quality, usability, and preference.
-
From Hazard Identification to Controller Design: Proactive and LLM-Supported Safety Engineering for ML-Powered Systems
An LLM-assisted STPA walkthrough of a trail-recommendation app shows how everyday ML systems can proactively surface and mitigate a broad range of harms.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.