Investigating the Extended Metacommunication Template: How a semiotic tool may encourage reflective ethical practice in the development of machine learning systems
Resumo
In this paper we present a qualitative study based on speculative design sessions that investigate how developers may use semiotic engineering’s Extended Metacommunication Template (EMT) to engage in reflective ethical practice of software development in a Machine Learning context. The template consists of a series of guiding questions about the development process, split into analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation phases. In the speculative design sessions, participants were presented with design briefs and asked to answer the questions while speculating about their design. Through 8 interviews resulting in 12 hours of recordings, we conducted a thematic analysis looking for salient themes. This process resulted in a codebook with 62 codes, structured around the main entities involved in the machine learning development process: Data, System, Developers, Users, and Stakeholders; as well as 5 themes that aid us in understanding the potential impacts of the template’s use. Our analysis indicates that the EMT shows promise for encouraging reflective ethical practice through linguistic approaches that highlight developers’ agency over the system and its consequences for users and stakeholders. Further study is still necessary into how this tool may be incorporated into real-world software development processes.
Palavras-chave:
design tool, reflective practice, ethical reasoning
Referências
M. Arnold, R. K. E. Bellamy, M. Hind, S. Houde, S. Mehta, A. Mojsilović, R. Nair, K. Natesan Ramamurthy, A. Olteanu, D. Piorkowski, D. Reimer, J. Richards, J. Tsay, and K. R. Varshney. 2019. FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (July 2019). DOI: 10.1147/JRD.2019.2942288 Conference Name: IBM Journal of Research and Development.
James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1 (March 2013), 11–35. DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2013.767276 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2013.767276.
Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Gabriel Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, and Carla Faria Leitão. 2021. A Semiotics-based epistemic tool to reason about ethical issues in digital technology design and development. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–374. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445900 tex.ids= BarbosaEtAl2021SemioticsbasedEpistemicToola.
Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa and Maíra Greco de Paula. 2003. Designing and Evaluating Interaction as Conversation: A Modeling Language Based on Semiotic Engineering. In Interactive Systems. Design, Specification, and Verification(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Joaquim A. Jorge, Nuno Jardim Nunes, and João Falcão e Cunha (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 16–33. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-39929-2_2
Tom L. Beauchamp, Professor of Philosophy and Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, and University Professor and Hollingsworth Professor of Ethics James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: _14H7MOw1o4C.
Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, Magnus H. Kaspersen, and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2020. Staging Reflections on Ethical Dilemmas in Machine Learning: A Card-Based Design Workshop for High School Students. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1211–1222. DOI: 10.1145/3357236.3395558
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 57–71. DOI: 10.1037/13620-004
Richard Buchanan. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues 8, 2 (1992), 5–21. DOI: 10.2307/1511637 Publisher: The MIT Press.
Jaime G. Carbonell, Ryszard S. Michalski, and Tom M. Mitchell. 1983. An Overview of Machine Learning. In Machine Learning, Ryszard S. Michalski, Jaime G. Carbonell, and Tom M. Mitchell (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA), 3–23. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-051054-5.50005-4
Robert Cooper and Michael Foster. 1971. Sociotechnical systems. American Psychologist 26, 5 (1971), 467–474. DOI: 10.1037/h0031539 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
Lachlan D. Urquhart and Peter J. Craigon. 2021. The Moral-IT Deck: a tool for ethics by design. Journal of Responsible Innovation 8, 1 (Jan. 2021), 94–126. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1880112 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1880112.
Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2005. The Semiotic Engineering of Human-computer Interaction. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: 0yjnotmvtGkC.
Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Renato Fontoura de Gusmão Cerqueira, Luiz Marques Afonso, Rafael Rossi de Mello Brandão, and Juliana Soares Jansen Ferreira. 2016. The SigniFYI Suite. In Software Developers as Users : Semiotic Investigations in Human-Centered Software Development, Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Renato Fontoura de Gusmão Cerqueira, Luiz Marques Afonso, Rafael Rossi de Mello Brandão, and Juliana Soares Jansen Ferreira (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 49–125. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42831-4_3
Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Carla Faria Leitão, Raquel Oliveira Prates, and Elton José da Silva. 2006. The semiotic inspection method. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian symposium on Human factors in computing systems(IHC ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–157. DOI: 10.1145/1298023.1298044
Salma Elsayed-Ali, Sara E Berger, Vagner Figueredo De Santana, and Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval. 2023. Responsible & Inclusive Cards: An Online Card Tool to Promote Critical Reflection in Technology Industry Work Practices. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI: 10.1145/3544548.3580771
Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., USA.
Ulrike Felt, Maximilian Fochler, and Lisa Sigl. 2018. IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting on responsibility in life science research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5, 2 (May 2018), 201–224. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1457402 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1457402.
Josh A. Firth, John Torous, and Joseph Firth. 2020. Exploring the Impact of Internet Use on Memory and Attention Processes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 24 (Dec. 2020), 9481. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17249481
Luciano Floridi and Josh Cowls. 2021. A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. In Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial Intelligence, Luciano Floridi (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 5–17. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_2
Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2012. The envisioning cards: a toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI: 10.1145/2207676.2208562
Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumeé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for Datasets. arXiv:1803.09010 [cs] (March 2018). [link] tex.ids: GebruEtAl2018DatasheetsDatasetsa, GebruEtAl2019DatasheetsDatasets arXiv: 1803.09010 tex.xnote: arXiv: 1803.09010.
Hildegard Taggesel Giostri. 2001. ALGUMAS REFLEXÕES SOBRE AS OBRIGAÇÕES DE MEIO E DE RESULTADO NA AVALIAÇÃO DA RESPONSABILIDADE MÉDICA. Argumenta Journal Law 1, 1 (2001), 35–50. DOI: 10.35356/argumenta.v1i1.3
Barbara Grimpe, Mark Hartswood, and Marina Jirotka. 2014. Towards a closer dialogue between policy and practice: responsible design in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI: 10.1145/2556288.2557364
Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard. 1996. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: 8ZRHYv59154C.
Mark Johnson. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. University of Chicago Press.
P. M. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Jennifer E. Lee, Shankar Narayan, Micah Epstein, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, Pa Ousman Jobe, Franziska Putz, Brian Robick, and Bissan Barghouti. 2021. An Action-Oriented AI Policy Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 772–781. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445938
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. Google-Books-ID: r6nOYYtxzUoC.
Andreas Matthias. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology 6, 3 (Sept. 2004), 175–183. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 220–229. DOI: 10.1145/3287560.3287596 tex.ids: MitchellEtAl2019ModelCardsModela event-place: Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tom M. Mitchell. 1997. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill. Google-Books-ID: EoYBngEACAAJ.
Cathy O’Neil. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group, USA.
Raquel O. Prates, Clarisse S. de Souza, and Simone D. J. Barbosa. 2000. Methods and tools: a method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces. Interactions 7, 1 (Jan. 2000), 31–38. DOI: 10.1145/328595.328608
Kamleshun Ramphul and Stephanie G Mejias. 2018. Is "Snapchat Dysmorphia" a Real Issue?Cureus 10, 3 (2018), e2263. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2263
John Richards, David Piorkowski, Michael Hind, Stephanie Houde, and Aleksandra Mojsilović. 2020. A Methodology for Creating AI FactSheets. arXiv:2006.13796 [cs] (June 2020). [link] arXiv:2006.13796.
Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 2 (June 1973), 155–169. DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730
Donald A. Schön. 1979. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Routledge, London. DOI: 10.4324/9781315237473
Hong Shen, Wesley H. Deng, Aditi Chattopadhyay, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Xu Wang, and Haiyi Zhu. 2021. Value Cards: An Educational Toolkit for Teaching Social Impacts of Machine Learning through Deliberation. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 850–861. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445971
Andrejs Skaburskis. 2008. The Origin of “Wicked Problems”. Planning Theory & Practice 9, 2 (June 2008), 277–280. DOI: 10.1080/14649350802041654 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/14649350802041654.
Kacper Sokol and Peter Flach. 2020. Explainability fact sheets: a framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 56–67. DOI: 10.1145/3351095.3372870
Daniel W. Tigard. 2021. There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap. Philosophy & Technology 34, 3 (Sept. 2021), 589–607. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-020-00414-7
Joshua A. Tucker, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barbera, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan. 2018. Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3144139. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3144139
Daniel Zhang, Saurabh Mishra, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchmendy, Deep Ganguli, Barbara Grosz, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Michael Sellitto, Yoav Shoham, Jack Clark, and Raymond Perrault. 2021. The AI Index 2021 Annual Report. Technical Report. Human-Centered AI Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1 (March 2013), 11–35. DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2013.767276 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/14626268.2013.767276.
Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Gabriel Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, and Carla Faria Leitão. 2021. A Semiotics-based epistemic tool to reason about ethical issues in digital technology design and development. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–374. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445900 tex.ids= BarbosaEtAl2021SemioticsbasedEpistemicToola.
Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa and Maíra Greco de Paula. 2003. Designing and Evaluating Interaction as Conversation: A Modeling Language Based on Semiotic Engineering. In Interactive Systems. Design, Specification, and Verification(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Joaquim A. Jorge, Nuno Jardim Nunes, and João Falcão e Cunha (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 16–33. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-39929-2_2
Tom L. Beauchamp, Professor of Philosophy and Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, and University Professor and Hollingsworth Professor of Ethics James F. Childress. 2001. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press. Google-Books-ID: _14H7MOw1o4C.
Karl-Emil Kjær Bilstrup, Magnus H. Kaspersen, and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2020. Staging Reflections on Ethical Dilemmas in Machine Learning: A Card-Based Design Workshop for High School Students. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1211–1222. DOI: 10.1145/3357236.3395558
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US, 57–71. DOI: 10.1037/13620-004
Richard Buchanan. 1992. Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues 8, 2 (1992), 5–21. DOI: 10.2307/1511637 Publisher: The MIT Press.
Jaime G. Carbonell, Ryszard S. Michalski, and Tom M. Mitchell. 1983. An Overview of Machine Learning. In Machine Learning, Ryszard S. Michalski, Jaime G. Carbonell, and Tom M. Mitchell (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA), 3–23. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-051054-5.50005-4
Robert Cooper and Michael Foster. 1971. Sociotechnical systems. American Psychologist 26, 5 (1971), 467–474. DOI: 10.1037/h0031539 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
Lachlan D. Urquhart and Peter J. Craigon. 2021. The Moral-IT Deck: a tool for ethics by design. Journal of Responsible Innovation 8, 1 (Jan. 2021), 94–126. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1880112 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1880112.
Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. 2005. The Semiotic Engineering of Human-computer Interaction. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: 0yjnotmvtGkC.
Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Renato Fontoura de Gusmão Cerqueira, Luiz Marques Afonso, Rafael Rossi de Mello Brandão, and Juliana Soares Jansen Ferreira. 2016. The SigniFYI Suite. In Software Developers as Users : Semiotic Investigations in Human-Centered Software Development, Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Renato Fontoura de Gusmão Cerqueira, Luiz Marques Afonso, Rafael Rossi de Mello Brandão, and Juliana Soares Jansen Ferreira (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 49–125. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42831-4_3
Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza, Carla Faria Leitão, Raquel Oliveira Prates, and Elton José da Silva. 2006. The semiotic inspection method. In Proceedings of VII Brazilian symposium on Human factors in computing systems(IHC ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–157. DOI: 10.1145/1298023.1298044
Salma Elsayed-Ali, Sara E Berger, Vagner Figueredo De Santana, and Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval. 2023. Responsible & Inclusive Cards: An Online Card Tool to Promote Critical Reflection in Technology Industry Work Practices. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI: 10.1145/3544548.3580771
Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press, Inc., USA.
Ulrike Felt, Maximilian Fochler, and Lisa Sigl. 2018. IMAGINE RRI. A card-based method for reflecting on responsibility in life science research. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5, 2 (May 2018), 201–224. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1457402 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1457402.
Josh A. Firth, John Torous, and Joseph Firth. 2020. Exploring the Impact of Internet Use on Memory and Attention Processes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 24 (Dec. 2020), 9481. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17249481
Luciano Floridi and Josh Cowls. 2021. A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. In Ethics, Governance, and Policies in Artificial Intelligence, Luciano Floridi (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 5–17. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_2
Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2012. The envisioning cards: a toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI: 10.1145/2207676.2208562
Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumeé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for Datasets. arXiv:1803.09010 [cs] (March 2018). [link] tex.ids: GebruEtAl2018DatasheetsDatasetsa, GebruEtAl2019DatasheetsDatasets arXiv: 1803.09010 tex.xnote: arXiv: 1803.09010.
Hildegard Taggesel Giostri. 2001. ALGUMAS REFLEXÕES SOBRE AS OBRIGAÇÕES DE MEIO E DE RESULTADO NA AVALIAÇÃO DA RESPONSABILIDADE MÉDICA. Argumenta Journal Law 1, 1 (2001), 35–50. DOI: 10.35356/argumenta.v1i1.3
Barbara Grimpe, Mark Hartswood, and Marina Jirotka. 2014. Towards a closer dialogue between policy and practice: responsible design in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI: 10.1145/2556288.2557364
Keith J. Holyoak and Paul Thagard. 1996. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: 8ZRHYv59154C.
Mark Johnson. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. University of Chicago Press.
P. M. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Jennifer E. Lee, Shankar Narayan, Micah Epstein, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, Pa Ousman Jobe, Franziska Putz, Brian Robick, and Bissan Barghouti. 2021. An Action-Oriented AI Policy Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 772–781. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445938
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. Google-Books-ID: r6nOYYtxzUoC.
Andreas Matthias. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology 6, 3 (Sept. 2004), 175–183. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 220–229. DOI: 10.1145/3287560.3287596 tex.ids: MitchellEtAl2019ModelCardsModela event-place: Atlanta, GA, USA.
Tom M. Mitchell. 1997. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill. Google-Books-ID: EoYBngEACAAJ.
Cathy O’Neil. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group, USA.
Raquel O. Prates, Clarisse S. de Souza, and Simone D. J. Barbosa. 2000. Methods and tools: a method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces. Interactions 7, 1 (Jan. 2000), 31–38. DOI: 10.1145/328595.328608
Kamleshun Ramphul and Stephanie G Mejias. 2018. Is "Snapchat Dysmorphia" a Real Issue?Cureus 10, 3 (2018), e2263. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.2263
John Richards, David Piorkowski, Michael Hind, Stephanie Houde, and Aleksandra Mojsilović. 2020. A Methodology for Creating AI FactSheets. arXiv:2006.13796 [cs] (June 2020). [link] arXiv:2006.13796.
Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 2 (June 1973), 155–169. DOI: 10.1007/BF01405730
Donald A. Schön. 1979. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Routledge, London. DOI: 10.4324/9781315237473
Hong Shen, Wesley H. Deng, Aditi Chattopadhyay, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Xu Wang, and Haiyi Zhu. 2021. Value Cards: An Educational Toolkit for Teaching Social Impacts of Machine Learning through Deliberation. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 850–861. DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445971
Andrejs Skaburskis. 2008. The Origin of “Wicked Problems”. Planning Theory & Practice 9, 2 (June 2008), 277–280. DOI: 10.1080/14649350802041654 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: DOI: 10.1080/14649350802041654.
Kacper Sokol and Peter Flach. 2020. Explainability fact sheets: a framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 56–67. DOI: 10.1145/3351095.3372870
Daniel W. Tigard. 2021. There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap. Philosophy & Technology 34, 3 (Sept. 2021), 589–607. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-020-00414-7
Joshua A. Tucker, Andrew Guess, Pablo Barbera, Cristian Vaccari, Alexandra Siegel, Sergey Sanovich, Denis Stukal, and Brendan Nyhan. 2018. Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3144139. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3144139
Daniel Zhang, Saurabh Mishra, Erik Brynjolfsson, John Etchmendy, Deep Ganguli, Barbara Grosz, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Michael Sellitto, Yoav Shoham, Jack Clark, and Raymond Perrault. 2021. The AI Index 2021 Annual Report. Technical Report. Human-Centered AI Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Publicado
16/10/2023
Como Citar
BARBOSA, Gabriel Diniz Junqueira; NUNES, José Luiz; DE SOUZA, Clarisse Sieckenius; BARBOSA, Simone Diniz Junqueira.
Investigating the Extended Metacommunication Template: How a semiotic tool may encourage reflective ethical practice in the development of machine learning systems. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO SOBRE FATORES HUMANOS EM SISTEMAS COMPUTACIONAIS (IHC), 22. , 2023, Maceió/AL.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2023
.
