The internet has become the main source of data to train modern text-to-image or vision-language models, yet it is increasingly unclear whether web-scale data collection practices for training AI systems adequately respect data owners' wishes. Ignoring the owner's indication of consent around data usage not only raises ethical concerns but also has recently been elevated into lawsuits around copyright infringement cases. In this work, we aim to reveal information about data owners' consent to AI scraping and training, and study how it's expressed in DataComp, a popular dataset of 12.8 billion text-image pairs. We examine both the sample-level information, including the copyright notice, watermarking, and metadata, and the web-domain-level information, such as a site's Terms of Service (ToS) and Robots Exclusion Protocol. We estimate at least 122M of samples exhibit some indication of copyright notice in CommonPool, and find that 60% of the samples in the top 50 domains come from websites with ToS that prohibit scraping. Furthermore, we estimate 9-13% with 95% confidence interval of samples from CommonPool to contain watermarks, where existing watermark detection methods fail to capture them in high fidelity. Our holistic methods and findings show that data owners rely on various channels to convey data consent, of which current AI data collection pipelines do not entirely respect. These findings highlight the limitations of the current dataset curation/release practice and the need for a unified data consent framework taking AI purposes into consideration.

Individually-experienced privacy harms are often difficult to demonstrate and quantify, which impedes efforts for their redress. Their effects often appear small and are inconsistently documented, and they only become more obvious when aggregated over time and across populations. Taking a design fiction approach, we explore the design requirements and cultural ideals of a government-run system that empowers people to collectively report on and make sense of experiences of privacy harm from online behavioral advertising. Through the use of fictional inquiry, story completion, and comicboarding methods, delivered in an online survey with 50 participants, we found that participants had detailed conceptions of the user experience of such a tool, but wanted assurance that their labor and personal data would not be exploited further by the government if they contributed evidence of harm. We extrapolate these design insights to government-supported complaint-reporting platforms in other domains, finding multiple common design gaps that might disincentivize people to report experiences of harm, be they privacy-related or otherwise.

Human participants play a central role in the development of modern artificial intelligence (AI) technology, in psychological science, and in user research. Recent advances in generative AI have attracted growing interest to the possibility of replacing human participants in these domains with AI surrogates. We survey several such “substitution proposals” to better understand the arguments for and against substituting human participants with modern generative AI. Our scoping review indicates that the recent wave of these proposals is motivated by goals such as reducing the costs of research and development work and increasing the diversity of collected data. However, these proposals ignore and ultimately conflict with foundational values of work with human participants: representation, inclusion, and understanding. This paper critically examines the principles and goals underlying human participation to help chart out paths for future work that truly centers and empowers participants.

Bias evaluation benchmarks and dataset and model documentation have emerged as central processes for assessing the biases and harms of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, these auditing processes have been criticized for their failure to integrate the knowledge of marginalized communities and consider the power dynamics between auditors and the communities. Consequently, modes of bias evaluation have been proposed that engage impacted communities in identifying and assessing the harms of AI systems (e.g., bias bounties). Even so, asking what marginalized communities want from such auditing processes has been neglected. In this paper, we ask queer communities for their positions on, and desires from, auditing processes. To this end, we organized a participatory workshop to critique and redesign bias bounties from queer perspectives. We found that when given space, the scope of feedback from workshop participants goes far beyond what bias bounties afford, with participants questioning the ownership, incentives, and efficacy of bounties. We conclude by advocating for community ownership of bounties and complementing bounties with participatory processes (e.g., co-creation).

Jesse Dodge, Maarten Sap, Ana Marasović, William Agnew, Gabriel Ilharco, Dirk Groeneveld, Margaret Mitchell, Matt Gardner. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2021.