Dr. Casey Fiesler
@cfiesler.bsky.social
information science professor (tech ethics + internet stuff)
kind of a content creator (elsewhere also @professorcasey)
though not influencing anyone to do anything except maybe learn things
she/her
more: casey.prof
Casey Fiesler is an American associate professor at University of Colorado Boulder who studies technology policy, internet law and policy, and public communication.
Source: Wikipedia
Computer science
40%
Communication & Media Studies
18%
I’m so proud of the students in my AI & Society class! They honed right in on this sentence from the university’s FAQ about their new ChatGPT site license, and had a LOT of questions. So do I! I promised I’ll try to find out what I can.
Oh definitely not. Also faculty are still permitted to e.g. ban it in their classes.
This quote comes from yesterday's email announcement from my university that they have acquired a ChatGPT license for everyone.
"We know that for some members of our community, generative AI raises significant concerns around privacy, sustainability and ethical use. We share those concerns and are working to mitigate – where possible – the impacts."
Those em dashes are doing a lot of work.
Those em dashes are doing a lot of work.
Except it's not actually a word limit, it's a page limit! Though other ACM venues have moved to word limits instead so I'm not sure why FAccT hasn't...
haha no I mean your point is still very good!!
My usual plea related to how to do ethics in computer science programs is both standalone classes and in every class. I’m not sure what the version of that is here except just telling people they need to talk about it and put it in the right place ha.
Agreed! It also doesn’t need to all be in one place. Those are different kinds of things! I pointed this out in part because some of the instructions include decisions about human subjects research and that seems so weird to put at the end.
But again, I am highly appreciative of the intention behind this. Doing something to encourage authors to write about research ethics in their papers is far more than most publication venues do, especially in computing.
Maybe my take on this relates to the work I've done on ethics education. Ethical considerations in special sections of papers at the very end that many people won't read makes me think of the senior level standalone CS ethics class you take after none of your profs mentions ethics for 4 years.
(That last bit is directed at authors. :) )
If as a researcher you're going to leave your ethical decision making out of a paper because you need to find 150 words to cut elsewhere, then you probably shouldn't be submitting to a conference with "transparency" in the title.
If as a researcher you're going to leave your ethical decision making out of a paper because you need to find 150 words to cut elsewhere, then you probably shouldn't be submitting to a conference with "transparency" in the title.
Now to be clear! My assumption that the *reason* for ethical considerations sections being part of endmatter is that the conference wants to encourage such statements by not counting them towards the page limit. So good intention, but...
1. death to page limits
2. come onnnnnnnn
1. death to page limits
2. come onnnnnnnn
Interestingly I care much less about mentioning IRB approval (which I tend to just assume happens when human subjects research is conducted, or that they don't have access to an IRB) than about explaining ethical considerations that fall outside of IRB.
Reflexivity, positionality, and disclosure in HCI
Are you an HCI researcher thinking about including a positionality statement? Here are some thoughts.
medium.com
Same with positionality/reflexivity -- this should be part of the methods. This is also a section that authors are instructed to put at the end in FAccT papers.
(I have some thoughts about this one as well, but appreciate the thoughtful pointer to medium.com/@caliang/ref... )
(I have some thoughts about this one as well, but appreciate the thoughtful pointer to medium.com/@caliang/ref... )
(I'm getting to this in the thread but) I assume the reason is just that they want to force discussion of ethics and didn't want that to count against the page limit.
I actually feel the same way (stronger, actually) about limitations and am completely baffled by why it's the norm for some fields/publications to put limitations at the end.
I need to know about limitations to appropriately interpret the findings! Why do I care about them when I get to the end!
I need to know about limitations to appropriately interpret the findings! Why do I care about them when I get to the end!
For example, let's say that you make a well informed ethical decision to obfuscate data in some way in order to protect the privacy of social media users. The reader is wondering why there aren't direct quotes in the findings or why some information is redacted. They should know this going in.
I think that decisions about how to conduct research ethically are at the exact same level as any other methodological decision -- e.g. how to recruit participants or what statistical analyses to run. They are also often just as relevant to understanding and interpreting the findings.
As I finish reviewing for FAccT I'd love to get other opinions on a topic. (I'm trying to decide if this is worth raising to decision makers or if I'm overreacting.)
TL;DR Ethical considerations should be in the methods section, so explicitly instructing authors to put them at the end is bad. 🧵
TL;DR Ethical considerations should be in the methods section, so explicitly instructing authors to put them at the end is bad. 🧵
I'm working on an async online class where I'm only permitted to assign 100% open access readings. I feel like half my prep is *despairing* over my inability to use things I want students to read. The latest: Ted Chiang's "Why AI Isn't Going to Make Art" New Yorker article. 😭
Fears about TikTok’s policy changes point to a deeper problem in the tech industry
Following the app’s sale, the company’s updated privacy policy and terms of service set off alarm bells. The reaction shows Big Tech has lost the public’s trust.
theconversation.com
After going down a rabbit hole re: U.S. TikTok's new privacy policy, I couldn't stop thinking about how even if some of the alarm was based on misleading information, it's not surprising that everyone assumes the worst. Anyway, I wrote about this: theconversation.com/fears-about-...
Here's hoping for another one in the near future! <3
PhD Admissions Visit | What To Do on a PhD Interview
YouTube video by Casey Fiesler
youtube.com
I also made this video about PhD admissions visits five years ago so I don't 100% remember what's in it (probably something about virtual visits during lockdown too 😭 ) but probably the same things that are in this thread! youtube.com/watch?v=OugQPPVM-wc&feature=youtu.be
5. Even if this is pre-admission, these are conversations, not an oral exam. I know it's hard, but try not to become paralyzed by wanting to sound smart. If you got this far, you are already on a short list. You are worthy. Punch your imposter syndrome in the teeth.
4. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Anything from "what are prelims exams like" to "where can I rock climb." And especially if you've already been admitted, asking financial questions is totally ok. Though current students can give you the best insight into e.g. cost of living relative to stipend.
3. The people you meet - faculty, current students, other prospective students - are very likely going to be your colleagues for years to come, even if you don't end up at that school. These are people you will see at conferences. Take advantage of the opportunity to meet so many people!
2. Don't be a jerk. TO ANYONE. Faculty hear about things like you being rude to an admin assistant in an email. And don't bad mouth programs especially the one you're at; "I hope this second tier program isn't my only option" doesn't sound good to the prospective for whom this is their dream school.
1. Talk to current students as much as you can, preferably when faculty aren't around. Ask them about what their lives are like, what their advisors are like, etc. And also consider how you get along with them because they might well be your primary social group.
PhD admissions visits/open houses are starting to happen, and I got a comment on an old Reddit post where I was offering advice, and realized that it's actually really good advice. So here it is! (And this applies whether you've already been admitted to the program or not.) 🧵