“AI technologies are grounded in models, and these models are inevitably incomplete in some way. It is up to humans to name educational goals and measure the degree to which models fit and are useful—or don’t fit and might be harmful. Such an assessment of how well certain tools serve educational priorities may seem obvious, but the romance of technology can lead to a “let’s see what the tech can do'' attitude, which can weaken the focus on goals and cause us to adopt models that fit our priorities poorly.” (Cardona et al., 2023, p. 54)“align priorities, educational strategies, and technology adoption decisions to place the educational needs of students ahead of the excitement about emerging AI capabilities.” (Cardona et al., 2023, p. 54)“Every conversation about AI (or any emerging technology) should start with the educational needs and priorities of students front and center and conclude with a discussion about the evaluation of effectiveness re-centered on those needs and priorities. Equity, of course, is one of those priorities that requires constant attention, especially given the worrisome consequences of potentially biased AI models. We especially call upon leaders to avoid romancing the magic of AI or only focusing on promising applications or outcomes, but instead to interrogate with a critical eye how AI-enabled systems and tools function in the educational environment.” (Cardona et al., 2023, p. 54)"Issue: **Decision processes for determining relevant well-being indicators through stakeholder deliberations need to be established.
## BackgroundA/IS stakeholder involvement is necessary to determine relevant well-being indicators, for a number of reasons:- “Well-being” will be defined differently by different groups affected by A/IS. The most relevant indicators of well-being may vary according to country, with concerns of wealthy nations being different than those of low- and middle-income countries. Indicators may vary based on geographical region or unique circumstances. The indicators may also be different across social groups, including gender, race, ethnicity, and disability status.- Common indicators of well-being include satisfaction with life, healthy life expectancy, government, social support, perceived freedom to make life decisions, income equality, access to education, and poverty rates. Applying them in particular settings necessarily requires judgment, to ensure that assessments of well-being are in fact meaningful in context and reflective of the life circumstances of the diverse groups in question.- Not all aspects of well-being are easily quantifiable. The importance of hard-to-quantify aspects of well-being is most likely to become apparent through interaction with those more directly affected by A/IS in specific settings.- Engineers and corporate employees frequently misunderstand stakeholders’ needs and expectations, especially when the stakeholders are very different from them in terms of educational and cultural background, social location, and/or economic status.The processes through which stakeholders become involved in determining relevant wellbeing indicators will affect the quality of the indicators selected and assessed. Stakeholders should be empowered to define well-being, assess the appropriateness of existing indicators and propose new ones, and highlight context-specific factors that bear on issues of well-being, whether or not the issues have been recognized previously or are amenable to measurement. Interactive, open-ended discussions or deliberations among a wide variety of stakeholders and system designers are more likely to yield robust, widely-shared understandings of well-being and how to measure it in context. Closed-ended or over-determined methods for soliciting stakeholder input are likely to miss relevant information that system designers have not anticipated.deliberation is one model for collective decisionmaking. Parties in such deliberation come together as equals. Their goal is to set aside their immediate, personal interests in order to think together about the common good. Participants in a stakeholder engagement and deliberation learn from one another’s perspectives and experiences.In the real world, stakeholder engagement and deliberation may run into the following challenges:- Individuals with more education, power, or higher social status may—intentionally or unintentionally—dominate the discussion, undermining their ability to learn from less powerful participants.- Topics may be preemptively ruled “out of bounds”, to the detriment of collective problem-solving. An example would be if, in a deliberation on well-being and A/IS, participants were told that worries about the costs of health insurance were unrelated toA/IS and thus could not be discussed.- Engineers and scientists may claim authority over technical issues and be willing to deliberate only on social issues, obscuring the ways that technical and social issues are intertwined.- Less powerful groups may be unable to keep more powerful ones “at the table” when discussions get contentious, and vice versa.- Participants may not agree on who can legitimately be involved in the conversation. For example, the consensual spirit of deliberation is often used as a justification for excluding activists and others who already hold a position on the issue.Stakeholder engagement and deliberative processes can be effective when:**- Their design is guided by experts or practitioners who are experienced in deliberation models.- Deliberations are facilitated by individuals sensitive to issues of power and are skilled in mediating deliberation sessions.- Less powerful actors participate with the help of allies who can amplify their voices.- More powerful actors participate with an awareness of their own power and make a commitment to listen with humility, curiosity, and open-mindedness.- Deliberations are convened by institutions or individuals who are trusted and respected by all parties and who hold all actors accountable for participating constructively.Ethically aligned design of A/IS would be furthered by thoughtfully constructed, context-specific deliberations on well-being and the best indicators for assessing it."p.82-83