Strategies to Combat Algorithmic Injustice

Part 1: The Algorithm Decided and Now You’re in Court Problem → Purpose → Solution Problem: It’s 2030. Your district just got sued by a student-led AI Ethics Council. The claims? No transparency in algorithmic grading Student data used to train third-party models without consent No way to appeal decisions made by machines Purpose: To avoid repeating these mistakes or ending up in court, the goal is to design policies with communities, not around them. Because trust, transparency, and protection shouldn’t come after the fact. They should be built into the blueprint from the start. Solution: To build trust and avoid breakdowns, we need more than reactive policies — we need real systems of care and clarity: ✅ Make grading explainable. If a machine is involved, students and families deserve to know how and why decisions were made. ✅ Protect student data like it matters, because it does. That means clear boundaries, written consent, and no quiet handoffs to vendors. ✅ Build in human pause points. AI should support teachers, not silently override them. Humans stay in the loop... always. ✅ Include students and communities early. If AI touches learning, equity, or identity, those impacted need a seat at the table, not just a summary after the fact. This kind of system doesn’t build itself. It takes purpose, planning, and yes, support. #FutureOfEducation #EthicalAI #BrightMindsAI #BuiltWithPurpose #StudentData #AIEthics #AIinSchools #FutureReady #EducationalLeadership #Teachers

Despite all the talks... I don’t think AI is being built ethically - or at least not ethically enough! Last week, I had lunch in San Francisco with my ex-Salesforce colleague and friend Paula Goldman, who taught me everything I know about the matter. When it comes to Enterprise AI, Paula not only focuses on what's possible - she spells out also what's responsible, making sure the latter always wins ! Here's what Paula taught me over time: 👉AI needs guardrails, not just guidelines. 👉Humans must remain at the center — not sidelined by automation. 👉Governance isn’t bureaucracy—it’s the backbone of trust. 👉Transparency isn’t a buzzword—it’s a design principle. 👉And ultimately, AI should serve human well-being, not just shareholder return The choices we make today will shape AI’s impact on society tomorrow. So we need to ensure we design AI to be just, humane, and to truly serves people. How do we do that? 1. Eliminate bias and model fairness AI can mirror and magnify our societal flaws. Trained on historical data, models can adopt biased patterns, leading to harmful outcomes. Remember Amazon’s now-abandoned hiring algorithm that penalized female applicants? Or the COMPAS system that disproportionately flagged Black individuals as high-risk in sentencing? These are the issues we need to swiftly address and remove. Organisations such as the Algorithmic Justice League - who is driving change, exposing bias and demanding accountability - give me hope. 2. Prioritise privacy We need to remember that data is not just data: behind every dataset is a real person data. Real people with real lives. Techniques like federated learning and differential privacy show we can innovate without compromising individual rights. This has to be a focal point for us as it’s super important that individuals feel safe when using AI. 3. Enable transparency & accountability When AI decides who gets a loan, a job, or a life-saving diagnosis, we need to understand how it reached that conclusion. Explainable AI is ending that “black box” era. Startups like CalypsoAI stress-test systems, while tools such as AI Fairness 360 evaluate bias before models go live. 4. Last but not least - a topic that has come back repeatedly in my conversation with Paula - ensure trust can be mutual This might sound crazy, but as we develop AI and the technology edges towards AGI, AI needs to be able to trust us just as much as we need to be able to trust AI. Trust us in the sense that what we’re feeding it is just, ethical and unbiased. And not to bleed in our own perspectives, biases and opinions. There’s much work to do, however, there are promising signs. From AI Now Institute’s policy work to Black in AI’s advocacy for inclusion, concrete initiatives are pushing AI in the right direction when it comes to ensuring that it’s ethical. The choices we make now will shape how well AI fairly serves society. What’s your thoughts on the above?

🧭Governing AI Ethics with ISO42001🧭 Many organizations treat AI ethics as a branding exercise, a list of principles with no operational enforcement. As Reid Blackman, Ph.D. argues in "Ethical Machines", without governance structures, ethical commitments are empty promises. For those who prefer to create something different, #ISO42001 provides a practical framework to ensure AI ethics is embedded in real-world decision-making. ➡️Building Ethical AI with ISO42001 1. Define AI Ethics as a Business Priority ISO42001 requires organizations to formalize AI governance (Clause 5.2). This means: 🔸Establishing an AI policy linked to business strategy and compliance. 🔸Assigning clear leadership roles for AI oversight (Clause A.3.2). 🔸Aligning AI governance with existing security and risk frameworks (Clause A.2.3). 👉Without defined governance structures, AI ethics remains a concept, not a practice. 2. Conduct AI Risk & Impact Assessments Ethical failures often stem from hidden risks: bias in training data, misaligned incentives, unintended consequences. ISO42001 mandates: 🔸AI Risk Assessments (#ISO23894, Clause 6.1.2): Identifying bias, drift, and security vulnerabilities. 🔸AI Impact Assessments (#ISO42005, Clause 6.1.4): Evaluating AI’s societal impact before deployment. 👉Ignoring these assessments leaves your organization reacting to ethical failures instead of preventing them. 3. Integrate Ethics Throughout the AI Lifecycle ISO42001 embeds ethics at every stage of AI development: 🔸Design: Define fairness, security, and explainability objectives (Clause A.6.1.2). 🔸Development: Apply bias mitigation and explainability tools (Clause A.7.4). 🔸Deployment: Establish oversight, audit trails, and human intervention mechanisms (Clause A.9.2). 👉Ethical AI is not a last-minute check, it must be integrated/operationalized from the start. 4. Enforce AI Accountability & Human Oversight AI failures occur when accountability is unclear. ISO42001 requires: 🔸Defined responsibility for AI decisions (Clause A.9.2). 🔸Incident response plans for AI failures (Clause A.10.4). 🔸Audit trails to ensure AI transparency (Clause A.5.5). 👉Your governance must answer: Who monitors bias? Who approves AI decisions? Without clear accountability, ethical risks will become systemic failures. 5. Continuously Audit & Improve AI Ethics Governance AI risks evolve. Static governance models fail. ISO42001 mandates: 🔸Internal AI audits to evaluate compliance (Clause 9.2). 🔸Management reviews to refine governance practices (Clause 10.1). 👉AI ethics isn’t a magic bullet, but a continuous process of risk assessment, policy updates, and oversight. ➡️ AI Ethics Requires Real Governance AI ethics only works if it’s enforceable. Use ISO42001 to: ✅Turn ethical principles into actionable governance. ✅Proactively assess AI risks instead of reacting to failures. ✅Ensure AI decisions are explainable, accountable, and human-centered.

The guide "AI Fairness in Practice" by The Alan Turing Institute from 2023 covers the concept of fairness in AI/ML contexts. The fairness paper is part of the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice Program (link: https://lnkd.in/gvYRma_R). The paper dives deep into various types of fairness: DATA FAIRNESS includes: - representativeness of data samples, - collaboration for fit-for-purpose and sufficient data quantity, - maintaining source integrity and measurement accuracy, - scrutinizing timeliness, and - relevance, appropriateness, and domain knowledge in data selection and utilization. APPLICATION FAIRNESS involves considering equity at various stages of AI project development, including examining real-world contexts, addressing equity issues in targeted groups, and recognizing how AI model outputs may shape decision outcomes. MODEL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT FAIRNESS involves ensuring fairness at all stages of the AI project workflow by - scrutinizing potential biases in outcome variables and proxies during problem formulation, - conducting fairness-aware design in preprocessing and feature engineering, - paying attention to interpretability and performance across demographic groups in model selection and training, - addressing fairness concerns in model testing and validation, - implementing procedural fairness for consistent application of rules and procedures. METRIC-BASED FAIRNESS utilizes mathematical mechanisms to ensure fair distribution of outcomes and error rates among demographic groups, including: - Demographic/Statistical Parity: Equal benefits among groups. - Equalized Odds: Equal error rates across groups. - True Positive Rate Parity: Equal accuracy between population subgroups. - Positive Predictive Value Parity: Equal precision rates across groups. - Individual Fairness: Similar treatment for similar individuals. - Counterfactual Fairness: Consistency in decisions. The paper further covers SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION FAIRNESS, incl. Decision-Automation Bias (Overreliance and Overcompliance), Automation-Distrust Bias, contextual considerations for impacted individuals, and ECOSYSTEM FAIRNESS. -- Appendix A (p 75) lists Algorithmic Fairness Techniques throughout the AI/ML Lifecycle, e.g.: - Preprocessing and Feature Engineering: Balancing dataset distributions across groups. - Model Selection and Training: Penalizing information shared between attributes and predictions. - Model Testing and Validation: Enforcing matching false positive/negative rates. - System Implementation: Allowing accuracy-fairness trade-offs. - Post-Implementation Monitoring: Preventing model reliance on sensitive attributes. -- The paper also includes templates for Bias Self-Assessment, Bias Risk Management, and a Fairness Position Statement. -- Link to authors/paper: https://lnkd.in/gczppH29 #AI #Bias #AIfairness

I wasn’t actively looking for this book, but it found me at just the right time. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities by Solon Barocas, @Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan is one of those rare books that forces you to pause and rethink everything about AI fairness. It doesn’t just outline the problem—it dives deep into why fairness in AI is so complex and how we can approach it in a more meaningful way. A few things that hit home for me: →Fairness isn’t just a technical problem; it’s a societal one. You can tweak a model all you want, but if the data reflects systemic inequalities, the results will too. → There’s a dangerous overreliance on statistical fixes. Just because a model achieves “parity” doesn’t mean it’s truly fair. Metrics alone can’t solve fairness. → Causality matters. AI models learn correlations, not truths, and that distinction makes all the difference in high-stakes decisions. → The legal system isn’t ready for AI-driven discrimination. The book explores how U.S. anti-discrimination laws fail to address algorithmic decision-making and why fairness cannot be purely a legal compliance exercise. So, how do we fix this? The book doesn’t offer one-size-fits-all solutions (because there aren’t any), but it does provide a roadmap: → Intervene at the data level, not just the model. Bias starts long before a model is trained—rethinking data collection and representation is crucial. → Move beyond statistical fairness metrics. The book highlights the limitations of simplistic fairness measures and advocates for context-specific fairness definitions. → Embed fairness in the entire ML pipeline. Instead of retrofitting fairness after deployment, it should be considered at every stage—from problem definition to evaluation. → Leverage causality, not just correlation. Understanding the why behind patterns in data is key to designing fairer models. → Rethink automation itself. Sometimes, the right answer isn’t a “fairer” algorithm—it’s questioning whether an automated system should be making a decision at all. Who should read this? 📌 AI practitioners who want to build responsible models 📌 Policymakers working on AI regulations 📌 Ethicists thinking beyond just numbers and metrics 📌 Anyone who’s ever asked, Is this AI system actually fair? This book challenges the idea that fairness can be reduced to an optimization problem and forces us to confront the uncomfortable reality that maybe some decisions shouldn’t be automated at all. Would love to hear your thoughts—have you read it? Or do you have other must-reads on AI fairness? 👇 ↧↧↧↧↧↧↧ Share this with your network ♻️ Follow me (Aishwarya Srinivasan) for no-BS AI news, insights, and educational content!

Bias in AI = Ad fairness? Understanding AI bias is crucial for ethical advertising. AI can perpetuate biases from training data, impacting ad fairness. I've written an article for Forbes Technology Council "Understanding And Mitigating AI Bias In Advertising" (link in comments), synopsis: Key Strategies: (a) Transparent Data Use: Ensure clear data practices. (b) Diverse Datasets: Represent all demographic groups. (c) Regular Audits: Conduct independent audits to detect bias. (d) Bias Mitigation Algorithms: Use algorithms to ensure fairness. Frameworks & Guidelines: (a) Fairness-Aware Tools: Incorporate fairness constraints  (TensorFlow Fairness Indicators from Google and IBM’s AI Fairness 360) (b) Ethical AI Guidelines: Establish governance and transparency. (c) Consumer Feedback Systems: Adjust strategies in real-time. Follow Evgeny Popov for updates. #ai #advertising #ethicalai #bias #adtech #innovation