Get the latest news, advances in research, policy work, and education program updates from HAI in your inbox weekly.
Sign Up For Latest News
Policymakers and the public often find algorithms to be complex, opaque and intimidating—and it can be tempting to pretend that hard moral questions have simple technological answers. But that approach leaves technical experts holding the moral microphone, and it stops people who lack technical expertise from making their voices heard.
Open to Stanford community members! We are hosting an interactive orientation featuring faculty insights, networking, and opportunities to explore AI and data science research, programs, and resources across Stanford.
Open to Stanford community members! We are hosting an interactive orientation featuring faculty insights, networking, and opportunities to explore AI and data science research, programs, and resources across Stanford.
As AI moves beyond language into systems that can perceive, understand, and act in the physical world, a new frontier is emerging: world models—AI systems that build and maintain working representations of real environments to predict how they change in response to action.
As AI moves beyond language into systems that can perceive, understand, and act in the physical world, a new frontier is emerging: world models—AI systems that build and maintain working representations of real environments to predict how they change in response to action.
Today, policymakers and scholars are seeking better ways to share the moral decision-making within high stakes software — exploring ideas like public participation, transparency, forecasting, and algorithmic audits. But there are few real examples of those techniques in use.
In Voices in the Code, scholar David G. Robinson tells the story of how one community built a life-and-death algorithm in an inclusive, accountable way. Between 2004 and 2014, a diverse group of patients, surgeons, clinicians, data scientists, public officials and advocates collaborated and compromised to build a new transplant matching algorithm – a system to offer donated kidneys to particular patients from the U.S. national waiting list.Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders, unpublished archives, and a wide scholarly literature, Robinson shows how this new Kidney Allocation System emerged and evolved over time, as participants gradually built a shared understanding both of what was possible, and of what would be fair. Robinson finds much to criticize, but also much to admire, in this story. It ultimately illustrates both the promise and the limits of participation, transparency, forecasting and auditing of high stakes software. The book’s final chapter draws out lessons for the broader struggle to build technology in a democratic and accountable way.
