Human participants in AI research: Ethics and transparency in practice

17 citations

Abstract

In recent years, research involving human participants has been critical to advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), particularly in the areas of conversational, human-compatible, and cooperative AI. For example, roughly 9% of publications at recent AAAI and NeurIPS conferences indicate the collection of original human data. Yet AI and ML researchers lack guidelines for ethical research practices with human participants. Fewer than one out of every four of these AAAI and NeurIPS papers confirm independent ethical review, the collection of informed consent, or participant compensation. This paper aims to bridge this gap by examining the normative similarities and differences between AI research and related fields that involve human participants. Though psychology, human-computer interaction, and other adjacent fields offer historic lessons and helpful insights, AI research presents several distinct considerations—namely, participatory design, crowdsourced dataset development, and an expansive role of corporations—that necessitate a contextual ethics framework. To address these concerns, this manuscript outlines a set of guidelines for ethical and transparent practice with human participants in AI and ML research. Overall, this paper seeks to equip technical researchers with practical knowledge for their work, and to position them for further dialogue with social scientists, behavioral researchers, and ethicists.

17
Citations
Research
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

Analyzed normative practices by reviewing AI research publications and compared them with ethical standards in adjacent fields such as psychology and HCI.

Authors
KR McKee
Study Type
Literature Review
Year
2024
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

Ethical practices including ethical reviews, informed consent, participant compensation, and contextual considerations specific to AI research.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.