The four-fifths rule is not disparate impact: a woeful tale of epistemic
  trespassing in algorithmic fairness
  Computer scientists are trained to create abstractions that simplify and
generalize. However, a premature abstraction that omits crucial contextual
details creates the risk of epistemic trespassing, by falsely asserting its
relevance into other contexts. We study how the field of responsible AI has
created an imperfect synecdoche by abstracting the four-fifths rule (a.k.a. the
4/5 rule or 80% rule), a single part of disparate impact discrimination law,
into the disparate impact metric. This metric incorrectly introduces a new
deontic nuance and new potentials for ethical harms that were absent in the
original 4/5 rule. We also survey how the field has amplified the potential for
harm in codifying the 4/5 rule into popular AI fairness software toolkits. The
harmful erasure of legal nuances is a wake-up call for computer scientists to
self-critically re-evaluate the abstractions they create and use, particularly
in the interdisciplinary field of AI ethics.
