Design, Human-Computer Interaction

Stanford researchers explore how to build culturally inclusive and equitable AI by offering initial empirical evidence on cultural variations in people’s ideal preferences about AI. 

There is an urgent need to incorporate the perspectives of culturally diverse groups into AI developments. We present a novel conceptual framework for research that aims to expand, reimagine, and reground mainstream visions of AI using independent and interdependent cultural models of the self and the environment. Two survey studies support this framework and provide preliminary evidence that people apply their cultural models when imagining their ideal AI. Compared with European American respondents, Chinese respondents viewed it as less important to control AI and more important to connect with AI, and were more likely to prefer AI with capacities to influence. Reflecting both cultural models, findings from African American respondents resembled both European American and Chinese respondents. We discuss study limitations and future directions and highlight the need to develop culturally responsive and relevant AI to serve a broader segment of the world population.

Stanford HAI Co-Director James Landay speaks about defining human-centered AI, HAI's accomplishments over the past five years, and broader societal impacts of AI technology.

Algorithm audits are powerful tools for studying black-box systems without direct knowledge of their inner workings. While very effective in examining technical components, the method stops short of a sociotechnical frame, which would also consider users themselves as an integral and dynamic part of the system. Addressing this limitation, we propose the concept of sociotechnical auditing: auditing methods that evaluate algorithmic systems at the sociotechnical level, focusing on the interplay between algorithms and users as each impacts the other. Just as algorithm audits probe an algorithm with varied inputs and observe outputs, a sociotechnical audit (STA) additionally probes users, exposing them to different algorithmic behavior and measuring their resulting attitudes and behaviors. As an example of this method, we develop Intervenr, a platform for conducting browser-based, longitudinal sociotechnical audits with consenting, compensated participants. Intervenr investigates the algorithmic content users encounter online, and also coordinates systematic client-side interventions to understand how users change in response. As a case study, we deploy Intervenr in a two-week sociotechnical audit of online advertising (N = 244) to investigate the central premise that personalized ad targeting is more effective on users. In the first week, we observe and collect all browser ads delivered to users, and in the second, we deploy an ablation-style intervention that disrupts normal targeting by randomly pairing participants and swapping all their ads. We collect user-oriented metrics (self-reported ad interest and feeling of representation) and advertiser-oriented metrics (ad views, clicks, and recognition) throughout, along with a total of over 500,000 ads. Our STA finds that targeted ads indeed perform better with users, but also that users begin to acclimate to different ads in only a week, casting doubt on the primacy of personalized ad targeting given the impact of repeated exposure. In comparison with other evaluation methods that only study technical components, or only experiment on users, sociotechnical audits evaluate sociotechnical systems through the interplay of their technical and human components.

A cross-disciplinary group of Stanford students examines the ethical challenges faced by data workers and the companies that employ them.

The values built into social media algorithms are highly individualized. Could we reshape our feeds to benefit society?