Concerns about the risks posed by artificial intelligence (AI) have resulted in growing interest in algorithmic transparency. While algorithmic transparency is well-studied, there is evidence that many organizations do not value implementing transparency. In this case study, we test a ground-up approach to ensuring better real-world algorithmic transparency by creating transparency influencers — motivated individuals within organizations who advocate for transparency. We held an interactive online workshop on algorithmic transparency and advocacy for 15 professionals from news, media, and journalism. We reflect on workshop design choices and presents insights from participant interviews. We found positive evidence for our approach: In the days following the workshop, three participants had done pro-transparency advocacy. Notably, one of them advocated for algorithmic transparency at an organization-wide AI strategy meeting. In the words of a participant: "if you are questioning whether or not you need to tell people [about AI], you need to tell people."
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bell et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: