Competition and Diversity in Generative AI

Recent evidence suggests that the use of generative artificial intelligence reduces the diversity of content produced. In this work, we develop a game-theoretic model to explore the downstream consequences of content homogeneity when producers use generative AI to compete with one another. At equilibrium, players indeed produce content that is less diverse than optimal. However, stronger competition mitigates homogeneity and induces more diverse production. Perhaps more surprisingly, we show that a generative AI model that performs well in isolation (i.e., according to a benchmark) may fail to do so when faced with competition, and vice versa. We validate our results empirically by using language models to play Scattergories, a word game in which players are rewarded for producing answers that are both correct and unique. We discuss how the interplay between competition and homogeneity has implications for the development, evaluation, and use of generative AI.

Integrating Expert Judgment and Algorithmic Decision Making: An Indistinguishability Framework

We introduce a novel framework for human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are algorithmically indistinguishable, or "look the same" to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side information", and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We demonstrate the utility of our framework in a case study of emergency room triage decisions, where we find that although algorithmic risk scores are highly competitive with physicians, there is strong evidence that physician judgments provide signal which could not be replicated by any predictive algorithm. This insight yields a range of natural decision rules which leverage the complementary strengths of human experts and predictive algorithms.

Unstable Unlearning: The Hidden Risk of Concept Resurgence in Diffusion Models

Text-to-image diffusion models rely on massive, web-scale datasets. Training them from scratch is computationally expensive, and as a result, developers often prefer to make incremental updates to existing models. These updates often compose fine-tuning steps (to learn new concepts or improve model performance) with "unlearning" steps (to "forget" existing concepts, such as copyrighted works or explicit content). In this work, we demonstrate a critical and previously unknown vulnerability that arises in this paradigm: even under benign, non-adversarial conditions, fine-tuning a text-to-image diffusion model on seemingly unrelated images can cause it to "relearn" concepts that were previously "unlearned." We comprehensively investigate the causes and scope of this phenomenon, which we term concept resurgence, by performing a series of experiments which compose "mass concept erasure" (the current state of the art for unlearning in text-to-image diffusion models (Lu et al., 2024)) with subsequent fine-tuning of Stable Diffusion v1.4. Our findings underscore the fragility of composing incremental model updates, and raise serious new concerns about current approaches to ensuring the safety and alignment of text-to-image diffusion models.

Distinguishing the Indistinguishable: Human Expertise in Algorithmic Prediction

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach focuses on the use of human judgment to distinguish inputs which `look the same' to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human/AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often have access to information -- particularly subjective information -- which is not encoded in the algorithm's training data. We use this insight to develop a set of principled algorithms for selectively incorporating human feedback only when it improves the performance of any feasible predictor. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can significantly improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Reconciling the accuracy-diversity trade-off in recommendations

In recommendation settings, there is an apparent trade-off between the goals of accuracy (to recommend items a user is most likely to want) and diversity (to recommend items representing a range of categories). As such, real-world recommender systems often explicitly incorporate diversity separately from accuracy. This approach, however, leaves a basic question unanswered: Why is there a trade-off in the first place? We show how the trade-off can be explained via a user's consumption constraints -- users typically only consume a few of the items they are recommended. In a stylized model we introduce, objectives that account for this constraint induce diverse recommendations, while objectives that do not account for this constraint induce homogeneous recommendations. This suggests that accuracy and diversity appear misaligned because standard accuracy metrics do not consider consumption constraints. Our model yields precise and interpretable characterizations of diversity in different settings, giving practical insights into the design of diverse recommendations.

Auditing for Human Expertise

High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human experts add value which could not be captured by an algorithmic predictor. We develop a statistical framework under which we can pose this question as a natural hypothesis test. Indeed, as our framework highlights, detecting human expertise is more subtle than simply comparing the accuracy of expert predictions to those made by a particular learning algorithm. Instead, we propose a simple procedure which tests whether expert predictions are statistically independent from the outcomes of interest after conditioning on the available inputs (`features'). A rejection of our test thus suggests that human experts may add value to any algorithm trained on the available data, and has direct implications for whether human-AI `complementarity' is achievable in a given prediction task. We highlight the utility of our procedure using admissions data collected from the emergency department of a large academic hospital system, where we show that physicians' admit/discharge decisions for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) appear to be incorporating information not captured in a standard algorithmic screening tool. This is despite the fact that the screening tool is arguably more accurate than physicians' discretionary decisions, highlighting that -- even absent normative concerns about accountability or interpretability -- accuracy is insufficient to justify algorithmic automation.

Simplistic Collection and Labeling Practices Limit the Utility of Benchmark Datasets for Twitter Bot Detection

Accurate bot detection is necessary for the safety and integrity of online platforms. It is also crucial for research on the influence of bots in elections, the spread of misinformation, and financial market manipulation. Platforms deploy infrastructure to flag or remove automated accounts, but their tools and data are not publicly available. Thus, the public must rely on third-party bot detection. These tools employ machine learning and often achieve near perfect performance for classification on existing datasets, suggesting bot detection is accurate, reliable and fit for use in downstream applications. We provide evidence that this is not the case and show that high performance is attributable to limitations in dataset collection and labeling rather than sophistication of the tools. Specifically, we show that simple decision rules -- shallow decision trees trained on a small number of features -- achieve near-state-of-the-art performance on most available datasets and that bot detection datasets, even when combined together, do not generalize well to out-of-sample datasets. Our findings reveal that predictions are highly dependent on each dataset's collection and labeling procedures rather than fundamental differences between bots and humans. These results have important implications for both transparency in sampling and labeling procedures and potential biases in research using existing bot detection tools for pre-processing.

Fairness On The Ground: Applying Algorithmic Fairness Approaches to Production Systems

Many technical approaches have been proposed for ensuring that decisions made by machine learning systems are fair, but few of these proposals have been stress-tested in real-world systems. This paper presents an example of one team's approach to the challenge of applying algorithmic fairness approaches to complex production systems within the context of a large technology company. We discuss how we disentangle normative questions of product and policy design (like, "how should the system trade off between different stakeholders' interests and needs?") from empirical questions of system implementation (like, "is the system achieving the desired tradeoff in practice?"). We also present an approach for answering questions of the latter sort, which allows us to measure how machine learning systems and human labelers are making these tradeoffs across different relevant groups. We hope our experience integrating fairness tools and approaches into large-scale and complex production systems will be useful to other practitioners facing similar challenges, and illuminating to academics and researchers looking to better address the needs of practitioners.

Algorithmic Monoculture and Social Welfare

As algorithms are increasingly applied to screen applicants for high-stakes decisions in employment, lending, and other domains, concerns have been raised about the effects of algorithmic monoculture, in which many decision-makers all rely on the same algorithm. This concern invokes analogies to agriculture, where a monocultural system runs the risk of severe harm from unexpected shocks. Here we show that the dangers of algorithmic monoculture run much deeper, in that monocultural convergence on a single algorithm by a group of decision-making agents, even when the algorithm is more accurate for any one agent in isolation, can reduce the overall quality of the decisions being made by the full collection of agents. Unexpected shocks are therefore not needed to expose the risks of monoculture; it can hurt accuracy even under "normal" operations, and even for algorithms that are more accurate when used by only a single decision-maker. Our results rely on minimal assumptions, and involve the development of a probabilistic framework for analyzing systems that use multiple noisy estimates of a set of alternatives.

Bridging Machine Learning and Mechanism Design towards Algorithmic Fairness

Decision-making systems increasingly orchestrate our world: how to intervene on the algorithmic components to build fair and equitable systems is therefore a question of utmost importance; one that is substantially complicated by the context-dependent nature of fairness and discrimination. Modern systems incorporate machine-learned predictions in broader decision-making pipelines, implicating concerns like constrained allocation and strategic behavior that are typically thought of as mechanism design problems. Although both machine learning and mechanism design have individually developed frameworks for addressing issues of fairness and equity, in some complex decision-making systems, neither framework is individually sufficient. In this paper, we develop the position that building fair decision-making systems requires overcoming these limitations which, we argue, are inherent to the individual frameworks of machine learning and mechanism design. Our ultimate objective is to build an encompassing framework that cohesively bridges the individual frameworks. We begin to lay the ground work towards achieving this goal by comparing the perspective each individual discipline takes on fair decision-making, teasing out the lessons each field has taught and can teach the other, and highlighting application domains that require a strong collaboration between these disciplines.