Addressing equity and ethics in artificial intelligence; American Psychological Association, January 8, 2024

 Zara Abrams, American Psychological Association; Addressing equity and ethics in artificial intelligence

"As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly permeates our world, researchers and policymakers are scrambling to stay one step ahead. What are the potential harms of these new tools—and how can they be avoided?

“With any new technology, we always need to be thinking about what’s coming next. But AI is moving so fast that it’s difficult to grasp how significantly it’s going to change things,” said David Luxton, PhD, a clinical psychologist and an affiliate professor at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine who is part of a session at the upcoming 2024 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) on Harnessing the Power of AI Ethically.

Luxton and his colleagues dubbed recent AI advances “super-disruptive technology” because of their potential to profoundly alter society in unexpected ways. In addition to concerns about job displacement and manipulation, AI tools can cause unintended harm to individuals, relationships, and groups. Biased algorithms can promote discrimination or other forms of inaccurate decision-making that can cause systematic and potentially harmful errors; unequal access to AI can exacerbate inequality (Proceedings of the Stanford Existential Risk Conference 2023, 60–74). On the flip side, AI may also hold the potential to reduce unfairness in today’s world—if people can agree on what “fairness” means.

“There’s a lot of pushback against AI because it can promote bias, but humans have been promoting biases for a really long time,” said psychologist Rhoda Au, PhD, a professor of anatomy and neurobiology at the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine who is also speaking at CES on harnessing AI ethically. “We can’t just be dismissive and say: ‘AI is good’ or ‘AI is bad.’ We need to embrace its complexity and understand that it’s going to be both.”"

Is it ever okay to jump to the front of the vaccine line? An ethics expert weighs in; Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), March 23, 2021

Stacy Weiner, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC); Is it ever okay to jump to the front of the vaccine line? An ethics expert weighs in

When a good is scarce, people sometimes behave badly to get it. Renowned bioethicist Arthur Caplan, PhD, offers advice on how to make the COVID-19 vaccine rollout more equitable, ethical, and trustworthy.

"What went wrong with applying ethical principles to vaccine distribution?

First, it became hard to roll out the vaccines to the priority groups, particularly the elderly. It turns out it’s not a great idea to ask them to make appointments on the internet [since they often lack access]. Also, some of them were homebound, so they couldn't get to vaccination sites.

As for health care workers, that term was never clearly defined. I think people had in mind front-line workers, but some hospitals and health systems were vaccinating everybody, including people who did psychotherapy remotely, even bioethicists and the board of trustees. So it looked to the public as though the rich were getting advantages. It looked like minority people weren't getting anything much — and they often weren’t.

If people think you're prejudiced, the sense of fairness falls apart, and then fewer people are willing to follow the rules. 

In addition, once you opened Moderna and Pfizer [vials of] vaccines, you had to finish them. [Moderna has 10 doses per vial, and Pfizer has five or six.] But nobody issued any guidance about how to redistribute vaccines that are about to go bad. That destroyed trust because people said, “Well, you're just giving it to anybody who's nearby or somebody who waits in line for six hours.” All of that made better sense than throwing it away — but none of that was following any agreed-upon rules.

The rollout has been unfair, inefficient, and frustrating. It’s made the public angry, and it’s made them not trust in government.""