Reuben Binns’s research while affiliated with University of Oxford and other places

Independent algorithm audits hold the promise of bringing accountability to automated decision-making. However, third-party audits are often hindered by access restrictions, forcing auditors to rely on limited, low-quality data. To study how these limitations impact research integrity, we conduct audit simulations on two realistic case studies for recidivism and healthcare coverage prediction. We examine the accuracy of estimating group parity metrics across three levels of access: (a) aggregated statistics, (b) individual-level data with model outputs, and (c) individual-level data without model outputs. Despite selecting one of the simplest tasks for algorithmic auditing, we find that data minimization and anonymization practices can strongly increase error rates on individual-level data, leading to unreliable assessments. We discuss implications for independent auditors, as well as potential avenues for HCI researchers and regulators to improve data access and enable both reliable and holistic evaluations.

Since the emergence of generative AI, creative workers have spoken up about the career-based harms they have experienced arising from this new technology. A common theme in these accounts of harm is that generative AI models are trained on workers' creative output without their consent and without giving credit or compensation to the original creators. This paper reports findings from 20 interviews with creative workers in three domains: visual art and design, writing, and programming. We investigate the gaps between current AI governance strategies, what creative workers want out of generative AI governance, and the nuanced role of creative workers' consent, compensation and credit for training AI models on their work. Finally, we make recommendations for how generative AI can be governed and how operators of generative AI systems might more ethically train models on creative output in the future.

Parenting brings emotional and physical challenges, from balancing work, childcare, and finances to coping with exhaustion and limited personal time. Yet, one in three parents never seek support. AI systems potentially offer stigma-free, accessible, and affordable solutions. Yet, user adoption often fails due to issues with explainability and reliability. To see if these issues could be solved using a co-design approach, we developed and tested NurtureBot, a wellbeing support assistant for new parents. 32 parents co-designed the system through Asynchronous Remote Communities method, identifying the key challenge as achieving a "successful chat." Aspart of co-design, parents role-played as NurturBot, rewriting its dialogues to improve user understanding, control, and outcomes.The refined prototype evaluated by 32 initial and 46 new parents, showed improved user experience and usability, with final CUQ score of 91.3/100, demonstrating successful interaction patterns. Our process revealed useful interaction design lessons for effective AI parenting support.

When selecting applicants for scholarships, universities, or jobs, practitioners often aim for a diverse cohort of qualified recipients. However, differing articulations, constructs, and notions of diversity prevents decision-makers from operationalising and progressing towards the diversity they all agree is needed. To understand this challenge of translation from values, to requirements, to decision support tools (DSTs), we conducted participatory design studies exploring professionals' varied perceptions of diversity and how to build for them. Our results suggest three definitions of diversity: bringing together different perspectives; ensuring representativeness of a base population; and contextualising applications, which we use to create the Diversity Triangle. We experience-prototyped DSTs reflecting each angle of the Diversity Triangle to enhance decision-making around diversity. We find that notions of diversity are highly diverse; efforts to design DSTs for diversity should start by working with organisations to distil 'diversity' into definitions and design requirements.

Since GDPR went into effect in 2018, many other data protection and privacy regulations have been released. With the new regulation, there has been an associated increase in industry professionals focused on data protection and privacy. Building on related work showing the potential benefits of knowledge management in organisational compliance and privacy engineering, this paper presents the findings of an exploratory qualitative study with data protection officers and other privacy professionals. We found issues with knowledge management to be the underlying challenge of our participants' feedback. Our participants noted four categories of feedback: (1) a perceived disconnect between regulation and practice, (2) a general lack of clear job description, (3) the need for data protection and privacy to be involved at every level of an organisation, (4) knowledge management tools exist but are not used effectively. This paper questions what knowledge management or automation solutions may prove to be effective in establishing better computer-supported work environments.

The European Commission proposed a Directive on Platform Work at the end of 2021. While much attention has been placed on its effort to address misclassification of the employed as self-employed, it also contains ambitious provisions for the regulation of the algorithmic management prevalent on these platforms. Overall, these provisions are well-drafted, yet they require extra scrutiny in light of the fierce lobbying and resistance they will likely encounter in the legislative process, in implementation and in enforcement. In this article, we place the proposal in its sociotechnical context, drawing upon wide cross-disciplinary scholarship to identify a range of tensions, potential misinterpretations, and perversions that should be pre-empted and guarded against at the earliest possible stage. These include improvements to ex ante and ex post algorithmic transparency; identifying and strengthening the standard against which human reviewers of algorithmic decisions review; anticipating challenges of representation and organising in complex platform contexts; creating realistic ambitions for digital worker communication channels; and accountably monitoring and evaluating impacts on workers while limiting data collection. We encourage legislators and regulators at both European and national levels to act to fortify these provisions in the negotiation of the Directive, its potential transposition, and in its enforcement.