Randomized Classifiers vs Human Decision-Makers: Trustworthy AI May Have
  to Act Randomly and Society Seems to Accept This
  As \emph{artificial intelligence} (AI) systems are increasingly involved in
decisions affecting our lives, ensuring that automated decision-making is fair
and ethical has become a top priority. Intuitively, we feel that akin to human
decisions, judgments of artificial agents should necessarily be grounded in
some moral principles. Yet a decision-maker (whether human or artificial) can
only make truly ethical (based on any ethical theory) and fair (according to
any notion of fairness) decisions if full information on all the relevant
factors on which the decision is based are available at the time of
decision-making. This raises two problems: (1) In settings, where we rely on AI
systems that are using classifiers obtained with supervised learning, some
induction/generalization is present and some relevant attributes may not be
present even during learning. (2) Modeling such decisions as games reveals that
any -- however ethical -- pure strategy is inevitably susceptible to
exploitation.
  Moreover, in many games, a Nash Equilibrium can only be obtained by using
mixed strategies, i.e., to achieve mathematically optimal outcomes, decisions
must be randomized. In this paper, we argue that in supervised learning
settings, there exist random classifiers that perform at least as well as
deterministic classifiers, and may hence be the optimal choice in many
circumstances. We support our theoretical results with an empirical study
indicating a positive societal attitude towards randomized artificial
decision-makers, and discuss some policy and implementation issues related to
the use of random classifiers that relate to and are relevant for current AI
policy and standardization initiatives.
