Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2021 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Carreira, Krishma Anaísa Coura |
| Orientador(a): |
Künsch, Dimas A. |
| Banca de defesa: |
Josgrilberg, Fabio Botelho,
Silva, Cilene Vitor da,
Osvald, Daniela,
Silveira, Sergio Amadeu da |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Metodista de Sao Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Comunicacao Social
|
| Departamento: |
Comunicacao Social:Programa de Pos Graduacao em Comunicacao Social
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede.metodista.br/jspui/handle/tede/2190
|
Resumo: |
Automated Decision-Making Systems (ADS) have an increasing role in modernity, with profound impacts in the economy, in politics and in society. They can generate numerous benefits, such as productivity boosts and efficiency, but can also miscalculate, increase risks, stimulate inequality, and cause multiple forms of discrimination. Despite this power, the operation of these systems is opaque and at times so complex that it is hard to tell how a decision was taken, or even if it was automated at all. This theme has been the subject of various works in different fields, with discussions ranging from ethics to accountability. In recent times, regulation efforts regarding Artificial Intelligence have also taken place. From the press point of view, ADS tend to become news only when applauded in innovation and tech editorials, or in articles exposing risks, but always lacking the necessary thoroughness. Under the light of Gislene Silva´s (2005) typology, this thesis defends that ADS attend to noticeability criteria based on origin (impact, conflict, controversy, rarity, surprise, government, tragedy/drama, justice and error) and in the vision of facts, especially the public interest noticeability criteria that, in democratic tradition, sparks the need to increase surveillance and critical monitoring of socio-technical systems that involve automated decisions. Thereby, it proposes that they can (and must) be targets of investigative reports, especially when systems are used in public administration. This paper presents a method, named IRADS (Investigative Reports on Automated Decision-Making Systems) that seeks to find ways to identify irregularities, biases, and errors that impact citizens’ lives. The insights here proposed come from an exploratory study, based on a wide revision of interdisciplinary literature by scholars in Communications, Journalism, Sociology, Anthropology, Law, Philosophy of Technology, Tech and Artificial Intelligence. (AU) |
