2.1 | Peer Review for The Formal Proposal on AI Ethics Awareness

Posted on February 27, 2023 by

amccoan Posted in Amy's Team — No Comments ↓

To: Jade Duan (Author)

From: Amy McCoan (Peer Reviewer)

Date: February 27, 2023

Subject: Peer Review of Formal Report Proposal: Assimilating AI Ethics Awareness into Computer Science Course Projects

Thank you for submitting the Formal Report Proposal for assignment 2.1. The proposal was engaging and interesting to review. Please see the document below for feedback and recommendations.

Initial Impressions:

The proposal is appropriately laid out, with each heading bolded and the scope listed from 1-6. The document was interesting to read, though a bit wordy, leaving the reader to decipher some of the meaning. Correcting and revising these mistakes will easily clarify and strengthen the proposal. Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics is an excellent topic choice for this assignment length. A relevant solution and a well-thought-out line of inquiry are presented. The qualifications presented for pursuing this analysis are appropriate.

Organization:

The formatting of this assignment is correct, including appropriate headers, and formatting making this document easy to read.

Expression:

The overall tone is formal and consistent. The writing expression is somewhat clear. There are minor grammatical mistakes and some wordy sentences which could be revised for clarity. The proposal is sound and appropriate in length.

Content

Introduction:

The document describes the lack of awareness of AI ethics in the computer science courses at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The problem is mostly, well laid out, addressing concerns of plagiarism versus creative reference.

There are a couple of grammatical errors which do not affect flow but should be addressed.

When using brackets to illustrate abbreviations, the whole term should be written first, then abbreviated in the parentheses “artificial intelligence” (AI).
Changing “those tools” to “these tools” would increase their relevance.

There is one vague sentence that could be revised to clarify its meaning for the reader.

The sentence “…how to ensure the moral integrity of input data” needs more context to understand the meaning of moral integrity concerning input data. Further, a parenthetical definition could help clarify what input data is.

Intended Audience:

The intended audience is clear and appropriate for this proposal.

Statement of Problem:

Citations are included and correct. Parenthetical definitions are used appropriately for clarity and are appreciated. The outlined problems align with the introduction. The document is over-wordy and lacking in clarity in spots. Adding some detail and outcomes/consequences to the problems would help make this section more robust.

Please see the suggestions to strengthen this section:

In the introductory sentence about concerns brought forward by “professionals” state who these professionals are. This will make the problem more personal and specific rather than abstract.
Please elaborate as to why “ill-formed social values instilled through unfiltered training data (data used to establish and verify AI models)” as well as “deliberate misinformation, biased analysis, and abusive videos” are a concern. Stating the consequences of the problems will help the reader understand why this problem needs addressing.
The first paragraph ends abruptly, moving the last sentence: “Most concerns are rooted…” to the first paragraph would add more flow to this section.

Proposed Solution:

There is great suggestion provided for adding projects to computer science courses to incorporate AI ethics. The project seems like an appropriate solution for a university course.

More detail or an example project would help to illustrate what sort of projects would be helpful to accomplish this goal.

Scope:

An impressive list of inquiries with emphasis on obtaining information from students regarding what sort of projects they would like to engage in to learn about AI ethics. There is some concern with the first inquiry specifically about the measurement of the influence of existing methods of education on AI ethics. Measuring influence is a large undertaking and may be outside of the scope of this assignment. The line of inquiry is appropriately aimed toward students; however, it is the professors that will be changing the syllabus. Adding a primary source evaluating their input might eliminate some bias. The scope is well-rounded and appropriate. Please see suggestions for adding conciseness:

Changing number 2: “What do students think about AI usage? Do they support more authoritative regulations or decentralized moderation, or other?” to “Do students support more authoritative regulations, decentralized moderation, or other?”
Keep each inquiry to one question.
Add one area of inquiry to gather UBC’s computer science professors’ input.

Methods:

Great choices in the use of both primary and secondary sources. There is a well-laid-out list of secondary sources.

To make this section stronger, please include where the primary survey will be posted and who should take it.
Minor grammatical error, add “The” to the start of the first sentence “The primary”.

Qualifications:

The qualifications presented for pursuing this analysis are appropriate.

Conclusion:

An excellent summary of the proposal. There is one sentence that suggests that UBC repurposes its resources however, this proposal has only mentioned adding to the syllabus and changing projects rather than reusing content.

For increased cohesiveness, suggest a different way that UBC could contribute to the solution.

Grammars and Typos:

There are no typos in the document. Minor grammatical errors have been addressed in the Content section.

Works Cited:

An interesting and diverse list of references. Works are appropriately cited.

Concluding Comments:

This proposal was an enjoyable and interesting topic to read about. Please see the following revisions that can be made to strengthen and clarify your proposal.

Checking the document for grammatical errors and running the it through a program like Grammarly for extra assistance would be beneficial.
Revising “…how to ensure the moral integrity of input data” in the introduction will increase clarity.
Defining who the “professionals” are in the Statement of Problem will personalize the problem.
Adding the outcomes or consequences to the problems listed in the Statement of Problem section will emphasize the issues.
Adding a project or details to the project proposed in the solution to serve as an example.
Ensuring that evaluating the effectiveness of current education methods so as to assess feasability for this assignment.
Having only one question per inquiry in Scope to increase conciseness.
Adding an inquiry for professors’ opinions on a project will help avoid bias.
Clarifying where the primary survey will be posted and to whom it will be aimed for greater clarity.

Thank you and please feel free to reach out with any questions. It has been a pleasure reviewing this work. Great job!

Please see the link to the AI Ethics Proposal here if needed.