在本页4 分钟阅读
概述
It found their gender classification was far less accurate for darker-skinned women than for lighter-skinned men. The study matters because it made intersectional auditing, which breaks results down by combined attributes rather than one at a time, a standard way of exposing hidden AI failures.
深入探讨
Joy Buolamwini, then at the MIT Media Lab, noticed that face detection software did not register her face until she put on a white mask. With Timnit Gebru, she designed a structured audit and published it at the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. Existing benchmarks were dominated by lighter-skinned men, so they built their own, the Pilot Parliaments Benchmark. It contains 1,270 images of members of parliament from three African and three European countries, labeled by binary gender and by skin type on the dermatologists' Fitzpatrick scale. They tested the gender classification services of IBM, Microsoft and Face++. All three did better on men than on women and better on lighter skin than on darker skin. The worst results appeared where the two overlapped. Error rates for darker-skinned women reached about 35 percent for the worst system, compared with under 1 percent for lighter-skinned men. A single overall accuracy figure hid this gap. A 2019 follow-up by Inioluwa Deborah Raji and Buolamwini, "Actionable Auditing," found that the audited companies had narrowed their gaps after being publicly named. Vendors that had not been audited, including Amazon, showed similar disparities. Amazon disputed the methodology. A common misconception is that Gender Shades measured the face identification used by police. It measured gender classification. Evidence on identification came from NIST's 2019 demographic effects report, which tested around 200 algorithms. Many had higher false positive rates for some groups, including African and East Asian faces, often by large factors, while the most accurate algorithms showed much smaller differences. Real harm followed. Robert Williams, Nijeer Parks and Porcha Woodruff, all Black, were each wrongly arrested after facial recognition leads. In June 2020, IBM said it would leave the general-purpose facial recognition business, Amazon paused police use of Rekognition, and Microsoft said it would not sell to US police until a federal law was in place.
战略影响
风险与安全
灾难性和日常的人工智能危害都取决于谁了解风险以及谁能够采取行动。
更清晰的判决
公众和专业素养决定强有力的安全政策在政治上是否可行。
打破炒作
清晰的解释可以减少炒作、实验室公关和模糊道德剧场的影响。
The Future of Gender Shades and Facial Recognition Bias Audits
Face recognition has become more accurate on average, and NIST's continuing tests show demographic differences shrinking for leading algorithms, though not disappearing, and staying large for many others. Policy remains fragmented. Some US cities restrict government use, the EU AI Act sharply limits real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces by police, and several vendors have withdrawn some products. Wrongful arrest cases continue to push police departments to treat matches as leads only. The Gender Shades method, publishing disaggregated results and naming vendors, is now widely used for auditing other AI systems, including language and image generators.
现实世界的实施
A product team reports face verification accuracy separately for darker-skinned women, darker-skinned men, lighter-skinned women and lighter-skinned men, instead of publishing one headline number that can hide a failing subgroup.
Robert Williams, a Black man in Detroit, was arrested in 2020 after facial recognition matched his driver's license photo to shoplifting footage. The charges were dropped, and a later settlement changed Detroit police rules on using such matches.
Before approving a vendor, a city procurement office checks NIST's demographic test results for the specific algorithm version on offer, because error differences vary widely between algorithms.
A researcher builds a test set balanced by skin type and gender, following the Pilot Parliaments Benchmark approach, to check a new face model for gaps before release.
风险与防护栏
将存在风险视为科幻小说，同时能力复合。
混淆了表面产品安全与高度自治下的对准。
只给非英语和非专业观众留下低质量的资源。
实施路线图
单独的产品危害、误用和失控/失调风险。
询问哪些证据会改变您对时间表和严重性的看法。
比起营销主张，更喜欢主要来源和具体评估。
确定一条行动路径：职业、政策、资金或技能——而不仅仅是意识。
不断探索
Free newsletter
Get the daily AI briefing
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Take the Gender Shades and Facial Recognition Bias Audits quiz
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
常见问题
What is Gender Shades and Facial Recognition Bias Audits?
Gender Shades is a 2018 study by Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru that audited commercial face analysis systems from IBM, Microsoft and Face++. It found their gender classification was far less accurate for darker-skinned women than for lighter-skinned men. The study matters because it made intersectional auditing, which breaks results down by combined attributes rather than one at a time, a standard way of exposing hidden AI failures.
Which companies' face analysis services did the original Gender Shades study audit?
The 2018 study tested IBM, Microsoft and Face++. Amazon was examined in the 2019 follow-up.
What was the Pilot Parliaments Benchmark made of?
The benchmark used 1,270 images of parliamentarians from six countries, chosen to balance gender and skin type.
Which scale did the researchers use to label skin type?
They used the Fitzpatrick scale from dermatology. Some later work uses broader scales such as the Monk scale.
What task did Gender Shades actually measure?
The study measured gender classification. A common misconception is that it measured the identification systems used by police.
Which subgroup had the highest error rates in Gender Shades?
Errors peaked where the two attributes overlapped, at darker-skinned women, reaching about 35 percent for the worst system.
继续学习
相关指南
为此主题精选的更多指南