{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02342225113858165, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.516949152542373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How Does Predictive Information Affect Human Ethical Preferences?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly involved in decision making in high-stakes domains, including loan applications, employment screening, and assistive clinical decision making. Meanwhile, involving AI in these high-stake decisions has created ethical concerns on how to balance different trade-offs to respect human values. One approach for aligning AIs with human values is to elicit human ethical preferences and incorporate this information in the design of computer systems. In this work, we explore how human ethical preferences are impacted by the information shown to humans during elicitation. In particular, we aim to provide a contrast between verifiable information (e.g., patient demographics or blood test results) and predictive information (e.g., the probability of organ transplant success). Using kidney transplant allocation as a case study, we conduct a randomized experiment to elicit human ethical preferences on scarce resource allocation to understand how human ethical preferences are impacted by the verifiable and predictive information. We find that the presence of predictive information significantly changes how humans take into account other verifiable information in their ethical preferences. We also find that the source of the predictive information (e.g., whether the predictions are made by AI or human doctors) plays a key role in how humans incorporate the predictive information into their own ethical judgements.