Designing Fiduciary Artificial Intelligence
Article No.: 10, Pages 1 - 15
Abstract
A fiduciary is a trusted agent that has the legal duty to act with loyalty and care towards a principal that employs them. When fiduciary organizations interact with users through a digital interface, or otherwise automate their operations with artificial intelligence, they will need to design these AI systems to be compliant with their duties. This article synthesizes recent work in computer science and law to develop a procedure for designing and auditing Fiduciary AI. The designer of a Fiduciary AI should understand the context of the system, identify its principals, and assess the best interests of those principals. Then the designer must be loyal with respect to those interests, and careful in an contextually appropriate way. We connect the steps in this procedure to dimensions of Trustworthy AI, such as privacy and alignment. Fiduciary AI is a promising means to address the incompleteness of data subject’s consent when interacting with complex technical systems.
References
[1]
Pieter Abbeel and Andrew Y Ng. 2004. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference on Machine Learning. 1.
[2]
Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G Robinson. 2020. Roles for computing in social change. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 252–260.
[3]
Mark Ackerman, Trevor Darrell, and Daniel J Weitzner. 2001. Privacy in context. Human–Computer Interaction 16, 2-4 (2001), 167–176.
[4]
Alessandro Acquisti and Jens Grossklags. 2003. Losses, gains, and hyperbolic discounting: An experimental approach to information security attitudes and behavior. In 2nd Annual Workshop on Economics and Information Security-WEIS, Vol. 3. Citeseer, 1–27.
[5]
Anthony Aguirre, Gaia Dempsey, Harry Surden, and Peter B Reiner. 2020. AI loyalty: a new paradigm for aligning stakeholder interests. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 1, 3 (2020), 128–137.
[6]
Dario Amodei, Chris Olah, Jacob Steinhardt, Paul Christiano, John Schulman, and Dan Mané. 2016. Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565 (2016).
[7]
Stuart Armstrong, Jan Leike, Laurent Orseau, and Shane Legg. 2020. Pitfalls of learning a reward function online. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13654 (2020).
[8]
Stuart Armstrong and Benjamin Levinstein. 2017. Low impact artificial intelligences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10720 (2017).
[9]
Stuart Armstrong and Sören Mindermann. 2018. Occam’s razor is insufficient to infer the preferences of irrational agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (2018).
[10]
Matthew Arnold, Rachel KE Bellamy, Michael Hind, Stephanie Houde, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilović, Ravi Nair, K Natesan Ramamurthy, Alexandra Olteanu, David Piorkowski, 2019. FactSheets: Increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (2019), 6–1.
[11]
Gustaf Arrhenius. 2000. An impossibility theorem for welfarist axiologies. Economics & Philosophy 16, 2 (2000), 247–266.
[12]
Dzmitry Bahdanau, Felix Hill, Jan Leike, Edward Hughes, Arian Hosseini, Pushmeet Kohli, and Edward Grefenstette. 2018. Learning to understand goal specifications by modelling reward. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01946 (2018).
[13]
Jack M Balkin. 2015. Information fiduciaries and the first amendment. UCD Law Review 49 (2015), 1183.
[14]
Jack M Balkin. 2020. The Fiduciary Model of Privacy. Harvard Law Review Forum 134 (2020), 11.
[15]
Seth D Baum. 2020. Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence. AI & Society 35, 1 (2020), 165–176.
[16]
Sebastian Benthall and Jake Goldenfein. 2021. Artificial Intelligence and the Purpose of Social Systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (AIES’21).
[17]
Sebastian Benthall, Seda Gürses, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2017. Contextual Integrity Through the Lens of Computer Science. Now Publishers.
[18]
Uri Benzion, Amnon Rapoport, and Joseph Yagil. 1989. Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study. Management Science 35, 3 (1989), 270–284.
[19]
Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Díaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (2022), 1–8.
[20]
Kerstin Bongard-Blanchy, Arianna Rossi, Salvador Rivas, Sophie Doublet, Vincent Koenig, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2021. ” I am Definitely Manipulated, Even When I am Aware of it. It’s Ridiculous!”-Dark Patterns from the End-User Perspective. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021. 763–776.
[21]
Richard RW Brooks. 2019. The Economics of Fiduciary Law. In The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law.
[22]
Christopher Burr, Mariarosaria Taddeo, and Luciano Floridi. 2020. The ethics of digital well-being: a thematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics (2020), 1–31.
[23]
Ryan Calo. 2013. Digital market manipulation. George Washington Law Review 82 (2013), 995.
[24]
Christopher Carroll, Jiri Slacalek, Kiichi Tokuoka, and Matthew N White. 2017. The distribution of wealth and the marginal propensity to consume. Quantitative Economics 8, 3 (2017), 977–1020.
[25]
Christopher F Chabris, David Laibson, Carrie L Morris, Jonathon P Schuldt, and Dmitry Taubinsky. 2008. Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 37, 2 (2008), 237–269.
[26]
Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017).
[27]
Julie E Cohen. 2016. The regulatory state in the information age. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 17, 2 (2016), 369–414.
[28]
IEEE Standards Committee 2020. IEEE Recommended Practice for Assessing the Impact of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems on Human Well-Being: IEEE Standard 7010-2020. IEEE.
[29]
Michael A Cusumano, Annabelle Gawer, and David B Yoffie. 2019. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. Harper Business New York.
[30]
Anupam Datta, Jeremiah Blocki, Nicolas Christin, Henry DeYoung, Deepak Garg, Limin Jia, Dilsun Kaynar, and Arunesh Sinha. 2011. Understanding and protecting privacy: Formal semantics and principled audit mechanisms. In International Conference on Information Systems Security. Springer, 1–27.
[31]
Daniel Dewey. 2011. Learning what to value. In International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. Springer, 309–314.
[32]
Anind K Dey, Gregory D Abowd, and Daniel Salber. 2001. A conceptual framework and a toolkit for supporting the rapid prototyping of context-aware applications. Human–Computer Interaction 16, 2-4 (2001), 97–166.
[33]
Ed Diener, Ed Sandvik, and William Pavot. 2009. Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In Assessing Well-being. Springer, 213–231.
[34]
Paul Dourish. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8, 1 (2004), 19–30.
[35]
Frank H Easterbrook and Daniel R Fischel. 1993. Contract and fiduciary duty. The Journal of Law and Economics 36, 1, Part 2 (1993), 425–446.
[36]
Peter Eckersley. 2018. Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function). arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00064 (2018).
[37]
Serge Egelman and Eyal Peer. 2015. The myth of the average user: Improving privacy and security systems through individualization. In Proceedings of the 2015 New Security Paradigms Workshop. 16–28.
[38]
IAB Europe. 2020. IAB Europe Transparency & Consent Framework Policies. https://iabeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/TCF v2-0 Policy version 2020-11-18-3.2a.docx-1.pdf
[39]
Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Eric Langlois, Pedro A Ortega, and Shane Legg. 2021. Agent incentives: A causal perspective. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,(AAAI-21). Virtual. Forthcoming.
[40]
Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter, Ramana Kumar, and Victoria Krakovna. 2021. Reward tampering problems and solutions in reinforcement learning: A causal influence diagram perspective. Synthese 198, 27 (2021), 6435–6467.
[41]
Arnaud Fickinger, Simon Zhuang, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, and Stuart Russell. 2020. Multi-principal assistance games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.09540 (2020).
[42]
Tamar Frankel. 2011. Fiduciary law in the twenty-first century. Boston University Law Review 91 (2011), 1289.
[43]
Batya Friedman, Edward Felten, and Lynette I Millett. 2000. Informed consent online: A conceptual model and design principles. University of Washington Computer Science & Engineering Technical Report 00–12–2 8 (2000).
[44]
Justin Fu, Anoop Korattikara, Sergey Levine, and Sergio Guadarrama. 2019. From language to goals: Inverse reinforcement learning for vision-based instruction following. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
[45]
Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé Iii, and Kate Crawford. 2021. Datasheets for datasets. Commun. ACM 64, 12 (2021), 86–92.
[46]
Martin Gelter and Geneviève Helleringer. 2019. Fiduciary Principles in European Civil Systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law.
[47]
Allan Gibbard. 1973. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1973), 587–601.
[48]
Thomas Krendl Gilbert, Sarah Dean, Tom Zick, and Nathan Lambert. 2022. Choices, Risks, and Reward Reports: Charting Public Policy for Reinforcement Learning Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05716 (2022).
[49]
Adam Gleave, Michael Dennis, Shane Legg, Stuart Russell, and Jan Leike. 2020. Quantifying differences in reward functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13900 (2020).
[50]
Andrew Gold. 2019. The Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty. In The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law.
[51]
Carol Graham, Kate Laffan, and Sergio Pinto. 2018. Well-being in metrics and policy. Science 362, 6412 (2018), 287–288.
[52]
Leonard Green and Joel Myerson. 2004. A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards.Psychological bulletin 130, 5 (2004), 769.
[53]
Shane Griffith, Kaushik Subramanian, Jonathan Scholz, Charles L Isbell, and Andrea L Thomaz. 2013. Policy shaping: Integrating human feedback with reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (2013).
[54]
James Grimmelmann. 2019. When All You Have Is A Fiduciary. https://lpeproject.org/blog/when-all-you-have-is-a-fiduciary/
[55]
Nyoman Gunantara. 2018. A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications. Cogent Engineering 5, 1 (2018), 1502242.
[56]
Dylan Hadfield-Menell and Gillian K Hadfield. 2019. Incomplete contracting and AI alignment. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 417–422.
[57]
Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Smitha Milli, Pieter Abbeel, Stuart J Russell, and Anca Dragan. 2017. Inverse reward design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017).
[58]
Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Stuart J Russell, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. 2016. Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (2016), 3909–3917.
[59]
Woodrow Hartzog and Neil M. Richards. 2022. Legislating Data Loyalty. Notre Dame Law Review Reflection 97 (2022), 365.
[60]
Maximilian Hils, Daniel W Woods, and Rainer Böhme. 2020. Measuring the emergence of consent management on the web. In Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 317–332.
[61]
Borja Ibarz, Jan Leike, Tobias Pohlen, Geoffrey Irving, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2018. Reward learning from human preferences and demonstrations in Atari. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (2018).
[62]
Michael Jensen and William Meckling. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (1976), 305–360.
[63]
Hong Jun Jeon, Smitha Milli, and Anca Dragan. 2020. Reward-rational (implicit) choice: A unifying formalism for reward learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 4415–4426.
[64]
Daniel Kahneman and Alan B Krueger. 2006. Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, 1 (2006), 3–24.
[65]
Michael Katell, Meg Young, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Vivian Guetler, Aaron Tam, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, and PM Krafft. 2020. Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the field. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 45–55.
[66]
Daniel B. Kelly. 2019. Fiduciary Principles in Fact-Based Fiduciary Relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law. Oxford Handbooks.
[67]
Lina M Khan and David E Pozen. 2019. A skeptical view of information fiduciaries. Harvard Law Review 133 (2019), 497.
[68]
Johannes Kirschner, Ilija Bogunovic, Stefanie Jegelka, and Andreas Krause. 2020. Distributionally robust Bayesian optimization. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2174–2184.
[69]
Bran Knowles, Jasmine Fledderjohann, John T Richards, and Kush R Varshney. 2023. Trustworthy AI and the Logics of Intersectional Resistance. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 172–182.
[70]
W Bradley Knox and Peter Stone. 2010. Combining manual feedback with subsequent MDP reward signals for reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1-Volume 1. Citeseer, 5–12.
[71]
Victoria Krakovna, Laurent Orseau, Ramana Kumar, Miljan Martic, and Shane Legg. 2018. Penalizing side effects using stepwise relative reachability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01186 (2018).
[72]
Ethan Kross, Philippe Verduyn, Emre Demiralp, Jiyoung Park, David Seungjae Lee, Natalie Lin, Holly Shablack, John Jonides, and Oscar Ybarra. 2013. Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PloS One 8, 8 (2013), e69841.
[73]
David Krueger, Tegan Maharaj, and Jan Leike. 2020. Hidden incentives for auto-induced distributional shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.09153 (2020).
[74]
Per Krusell and Anthony A Smith, Jr. 1998. Income and wealth heterogeneity in the macroeconomy. Journal of Political Economy 106, 5 (1998), 867–896.
[75]
Jungwon Kuem, Soumya Ray, Pei-Fang Hsu, and Lara Khansa. 2020. Smartphone addiction and conflict: An incentive-sensitisation perspective of addiction for Information Systems. European Journal of Information Systems (2020), 1–22.
[76]
David Laibson. 1997. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 2 (1997), 443–478.
[77]
Jan Leike, David Krueger, Tom Everitt, Miljan Martic, Vishal Maini, and Shane Legg. 2018. Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07871 (2018).
[78]
Jan Leike, Miljan Martic, Victoria Krakovna, Pedro A Ortega, Tom Everitt, Andrew Lefrancq, Laurent Orseau, and Shane Legg. 2017. AI safety gridworlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09883 (2017).
[79]
Myles-Jay Linton, Paul Dieppe, and Antonieta Medina-Lara. 2016. Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. BMJ open 6, 7 (2016), e010641.
[80]
Zengrui Liu, Umar Iqbal, and Nitesh Saxena. 2022. Opted Out, Yet Tracked: Are Regulations Enough to Protect Your Privacy?https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2202.00885
[81]
Harry M Markowitz. 1968. Portfolio selection. Yale University Press.
[82]
R Timothy Marler and Jasbir S Arora. 2004. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26, 6 (2004), 369–395.
[83]
Donald Martin Jr, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Jill Kuhlberg, Andrew Smart, and William S Isaac. 2020. Participatory problem formulation for fairer machine learning through community based system dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.07572 (2020).
[84]
Alice E Marwick 2018. Privacy at the margins| understanding privacy at the margins—introduction. International Journal of Communication 12 (2018), 9.
[85]
Aleecia M McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The cost of reading privacy policies. ISJLP 4 (2008), 543.
[86]
Paul B. Miller. 2019. The Identification of Fiduciary Relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law. Oxford Handbooks.
[87]
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. 220–229.
[88]
Brent Mittelstadt. 2017. From individual to group privacy in big data analytics. Philosophy & Technology 30, 4 (2017), 475–494.
[89]
Niklas Möller. 2012. The concepts of risk and safety. Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk 1 (2012), 55–85.
[90]
Andrew Y Ng, Stuart J Russell, 2000. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In ICML, Vol. 1. 2.
[91]
Shachar Nir. 2020. One duty to all: the fiduciary duty of impartiality and stockholders’ conflict of interest. Hastings Business Law Journal 16 (2020), 1.
[92]
Helen Nissenbaum. 2020. Privacy in context. Stanford University Press.
[93]
Ritesh Noothigattu, Djallel Bouneffouf, Nicholas Mattei, Rachita Chandra, Piyush Madan, Kush R Varshney, Murray Campbell, Moninder Singh, and Francesca Rossi. 2019. Teaching AI agents ethical values using reinforcement learning and policy orchestration. IBM Journal of Research and Development 63, 4/5 (2019), 2–1.
[94]
Ritesh Noothigattu, Snehalkumar Gaikwad, Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Iyad Rahwan, Pradeep Ravikumar, and Ariel Procaccia. 2018. A voting-based system for ethical decision making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 32.
[95]
Midas Nouwens, Ilaria Liccardi, Michael Veale, David Karger, and Lalana Kagal. 2020. Dark patterns after the GDPR: Scraping consent pop-ups and demonstrating their influence. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
[96]
Jonathan A Obar and Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch. 2020. The biggest lie on the internet: Ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society 23, 1 (2020), 128–147.
[97]
Ted O’Donoghue and Matthew Rabin. 2001. Choice and procrastination. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 1 (2001), 121–160.
[98]
Andrzej Osyczka. 1984. Multicriterion optimisation in engineering. Halsted Press.
[99]
Galen Panger. 2018. People tend to wind down, not up, when they browse social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–29.
[100]
Derek Parfit. 1984. Reasons and persons. OUP Oxford.
[101]
Alexander Peysakhovich. 2019. Reinforcement learning and inverse reinforcement learning with system 1 and system 2. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 409–415.
[102]
Greta L Polites, Christina Serrano, Jason Bennett Thatcher, and Kevin Matthews. 2018. Understanding social networking site (SNS) identity from a dual systems perspective: an investigation of the dark side of SNS use. European Journal of Information Systems 27, 5 (2018), 600–621.
[103]
Mahendra Prasad. 2018. Social choice and the value alignment problem. Artificial intelligence safety and security (2018), 291–314.
[104]
Julia M Puaschunder. 2021. Data Fiduciary in Order to Alleviate Principal–Agent Problems in the Artificial Big Data Age. In Information for Efficient Decision Making: Big Data, Blockchain and Relevance. World Scientific, 41–90.
[105]
Neil M Richards and Woodrow Hartzog. 2020. A Duty of Loyalty for Privacy Law. Available at SSRN (2020).
[106]
Sasha Romanosky, Alessandro Acquisti, Jason Hong, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Batya Friedman. 2006. Privacy patterns for online interactions. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. 1–9.
[107]
Constantin A Rothkopf and Christos Dimitrakakis. 2011. Preference elicitation and inverse reinforcement learning. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 34–48.
[108]
Stuart Russell. 2019. Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Penguin.
[109]
Cristiana Santos, Midas Nouwens, Michael Toth, Nataliia Bielova, and Vincent Roca. 2021. Consent Management Platforms under the GDPR: processors and/or controllers?. In Annual Privacy Forum. Springer, 47–69.
[110]
Steven L Schwarcz. 2009. Fiduciaries with Conflicting Obligations. Minn. L. Rev. 94 (2009), 1867.
[111]
Paul M Schwartz and Karl-Nikolaus Peifer. 2017. Transatlantic data privacy law. Georgia Law Journal 106 (2017), 115.
[112]
Andrew D Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 59–68.
[113]
Rohin Shah, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, Jordan Alexander, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. 2019. Preferences implicit in the state of the world. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04198 (2019).
[114]
Robert H Sitkoff. [n. d.]. Other Fiduciary Duties. In The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law.
[115]
Robert H Sitkoff. 2011. The economic structure of fiduciary law. Boston University Law Review 91 (2011), 1039.
[116]
Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2022. Participation is not a design fix for machine learning. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization. 1–6.
[117]
Nate Soares and Benja Fallenstein. 2014. Aligning superintelligence with human interests: A technical research agenda. Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) technical report 8 (2014).
[118]
Daniel J Solove. 2021. The myth of the privacy paradox. George Washington Law Review 89 (2021), 1.
[119]
Shawn Squire, Stefanie Tellex, Dilip Arumugam, and Lei Yang. 2015. Grounding English commands to reward functions. In Robotics: Science and Systems.
[120]
Wolfram Stadler. 1988. Fundamentals of multicriteria optimization. In Multicriteria Optimization in Engineering and in the Sciences. Springer, 1–25.
[121]
Thomas Streinz. 2021. The Evolution of European Data Law. The Evolution of EU Law (OUP, 3rd edn 2021) (2021), 902–936.
[122]
Daniel Susser, Beate Roessler, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2019. Technology, autonomy, and manipulation. Internet Policy Review 8, 2 (2019).
[123]
Linnet Taylor, Luciano Floridi, and Bart Van der Sloot. 2016. Group Privacy: New Challenges of Data Technologies. Vol. 126. Springer.
[124]
Andrea L Thomaz and Cynthia Breazeal. 2008. Teachable robots: Understanding human teaching behavior to build more effective robot learners. Artificial Intelligence 172, 6-7 (2008), 716–737.
[125]
Morten Tromholt. 2016. The Facebook experiment: Quitting Facebook leads to higher levels of well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 19, 11 (2016), 661–666.
[126]
Emily Tseng, Mehrnaz Sabet, Rosanna Bellini, Harkiran Kaur Sodhi, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. 2022. Care infrastructures for digital security in intimate partner violence. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20.
[127]
Andrew Tuch. Forthcoming 2021. A General Defense of Information Fiduciaries. Washington University Law Review 98 (Forthcoming 2021).
[128]
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1985. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. In Behavioral Decision Making. Springer, 25–41.
[129]
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1989. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers. Springer, 81–126.
[130]
Werner Ulrich. 1987. Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research 31, 3 (1987), 276–283.
[131]
Jennifer M Urban and Chris Jay Hoofnagle. 2014. The privacy pragmatic as privacy vulnerable. In Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2014) Workshop on Privacy Personas and Segmentation (PPS).
[132]
Kush R Varshney. 2016. Engineering safety in machine learning. In 2016 Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA). IEEE, 1–5.
[133]
Kush R Varshney. 2019. Trustworthy machine learning and artificial intelligence. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 25, 3 (2019), 26–29.
[134]
Kush R Varshney and Homa Alemzadeh. 2017. On the safety of machine learning: Cyber-physical systems, decision sciences, and data products. Big Data 5, 3 (2017), 246–255.
[135]
Salome Viljoen. 2021. A relational theory of data governance. Yale Law Journal 131 (2021), 573.
[136]
Salomé Viljoen, Jake Goldenfein, and Lee McGuigan. 2021. Design choices: Mechanism design and platform capitalism. Big Data & Society 8, 2 (2021), 20539517211034312.
[137]
Ari Ezra Waldman. 2019. Privacy Law’s False Promise. Washington University Law Review 97 (2019), 773.
[138]
Ari Ezra Waldman. 2021. Industry Unbound: The Inside Story of Privacy, Data, and Corporate Power. Cambridge University Press.
[139]
Michael Walzer. 2008. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic books.
[140]
Jeannette M Wing. 2021. Trustworthy AI. Commun. ACM 64, 10 (2021), 64–71.
[141]
Kelvin Xu, Ellis Ratner, Anca Dragan, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. 2019. Learning a prior over intent via meta-inverse reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 6952–6962.
[142]
Yinlong Yuan, Zhu Liang Yu, Zhenghui Gu, Xiaoyan Deng, and Yuanqing Li. 2019. A novel multi-step reinforcement learning method for solving reward hacking. Applied Intelligence 49, 8 (2019), 2874–2888.
[143]
Eliezer Yudkowsky. 2016. The AI alignment problem: why it is hard, and where to start. Symbolic Systems Distinguished Speaker (2016).
[144]
Ewa Zawojska and Mikołaj Czajkowski. 2017. Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6, 4 (2017), 374–403.
[145]
Simon Zhuang and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. 2020. Consequences of misaligned AI. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 15763–15773.
[146]
Brian D Ziebart, Andrew L Maas, J Andrew Bagnell, Anind K Dey, 2008. Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In AAAI, Vol. 8. Chicago, IL, USA, 1433–1438.
Index Terms
- Designing Fiduciary Artificial Intelligence
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2023
498 pages
ISBN:9798400703812
DOI:10.1145/3617694
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 30 October 2023
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
EAAMO '23: Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization
October 30 - November 1, 2023
MA, Boston, USA
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 242Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)194
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)42
Reflects downloads up to 26 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in