# AI Ethics Care Paper
*Yim Register & Dan Schneider*

If majority or even just many students care about life/death or profit or organizational pressures --- HOW do we "move them" to personal relatability and ethics of care?

- empathy building
- using data points as an intentional guide for scenarios to pick to investigate as a class
- center user experiences, assuming and framing in an initial overview that its "okay" (ethical) but then LOOK AT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

- 1. research on different areas look how cool this is and how beneficial it is (INTENDED uses)
- 2. things we didn't anticipate, things gone wrong, unintended consequences
- 3. user impact/experience

rhetorical strategies

- ethos pathos logos?

logos: logical
ethos: ethical dilemmas/what is right or wrong
pathos: your heart <3

how does a teacher know what to put in front of students?

what is appropriate?

What do results mean and what do we do?

High Relatability = possibly assisting marginalized students to "stay" in AI, or at least be engaged due to their situated knowledge and experiences

Low Relatability = Opportunity for empathy building through other means, teacher choice to purposefully build empathy either through guest speaker or storytelling, and is part of social justice in the classroom and responsibility of educators to expose students to things they may not have heard of

FLAT LINES = across the board these are important to all, implying high urgency scenarios to be included

Ideally you would sample across all "types" of scenarios, and a demographics analysis needs to be done

At the end of the day, we have different options that meet different objectives.

It may be the case that as you learn more about something, it is more harmful and impactful than you realize. Example: Voice Assistants is urgent to people who relate to the problem and may have more issues than we realize

Dan thoughts:
Opening is flatline example
Next example is steep, acknowledging not everyone relates, trying to build in user-centered design principles to build empathy to move the needle in relatability and perhaps urgency. If I don't take the opportunity to "move the needle" the dominant group stays the dominant group and what they're interested in;

Empathy Building Section

User Centered Design
https://www.kaporcenter.org/

[Dan Summary]
- As a curriculum writer, the flat-lines are useful for creating widely-applicable situations to include in curricula. ie: if I, in designing for the largest possible scale, were to include a flat-line scenario: I'm reasonably sure most students will be able to have an engaging discussion regardless of their relatability
- As an in-classroom teacher, my capacity to know my students and engage with them on a deeper, more personal level makes the steeper scenarios more interesting. A few ways this may manifest:
- I may decide to include some of these as choices during a project, making sure to pick ones that tend to be more relatable to certain demographics. This helps ensure all my students have an engaging topic for participation and "feel seen" when participating in projects.
- If I let the "cards fall where they may", a dominant group in my class may avoid choosing / discussing scenarios that they cannot relate to, even though they may eventually end up in a career in tech whose decisions impact these other non-dominant groups. Therefore, I may view it as a responsibility to introduce my students to these other scenarios, knowing they may not be immediately relatable. Which means, the steeper correlation graphs are useful because they suggest (in a a very hand-wavy way) that the more students know about a problem (relatability), the more urgent they will think it is. Therefore, those are good candidates for me to spend a dedicated amount of time on and build in empathy-building and user-centered design activities to help students understand how this is an urgent problem for certain folks in our society.

3/29

Decision Making Themes

How do we answer the question: what should we teach and how should we teach it?