Maryam Molamohammadi

Maryam Molamohammadi, Afaf Taik, Nicolas Le Roux et al.

The growing utilization of machine learning (ML) in decision-making processes raises questions about its benefits to society. In this study, we identify and analyze three axes of heterogeneity that significantly influence the trajectory of ML products. These axes are i) values, culture and regulations, ii) data composition, and iii) resource and infrastructure capacity. We demonstrate how these axes are interdependent and mutually influence one another, emphasizing the need to consider and address them jointly. Unfortunately, the current research landscape falls short in this regard, often failing to adopt a holistic approach. We examine the prevalent practices and methodologies that skew these axes in favor of a selected few, resulting in power concentration, homogenized control, and increased dependency. We discuss how this fragmented study of the three axes poses a significant challenge, leading to an impractical solution space that lacks reflection of real-world scenarios. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the interconnected nature of society and to foster the democratic and inclusive development of ML systems that are more aligned with real-world complexities and its diverse requirements.

Isar Nejadgholi, Maryam Molamohammadi, Samir Bakhtawar

The non-profit settlement sector in Canada supports newcomers in achieving successful integration. This sector faces increasing operational pressures amidst rising immigration targets, which highlights a need for enhanced efficiency and innovation, potentially through reliable AI solutions. The ad-hoc use of general-purpose generative AI, such as ChatGPT, might become a common practice among newcomers and service providers to address this need. However, these tools are not tailored for the settlement domain and can have detrimental implications for immigrants and refugees. We explore the risks that these tools might pose on newcomers to first, warn against the unguarded use of generative AI, and second, to incentivize further research and development in creating AI literacy programs as well as customized LLMs that are aligned with the preferences of the impacted communities. Crucially, such technologies should be designed to integrate seamlessly into the existing workflow of the settlement sector, ensuring human oversight, trustworthiness, and accountability.

Gauri Sharma, Maryam Molamohammadi

The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

Pratheeksha Nair, Gabriel Lefebvre, Sophia Garrel et al.

AI for good initiatives often rely on the assumption that technical interventions can resolve complex social problems. In the context of human trafficking (HT), such techno-solutionism risks oversimplifying exploitation, reinforcing power imbalances and causing harm to the very communities AI claims to support. In this paper, we introduce the Radical Questioning (RQ) framework as a five step, pre-project ethical assessment tool to critically evaluate whether AI should be built at all, especially in domains involving marginalized populations and entrenched systemic injustice. RQ does not replace principles based ethics but precedes it, offering an upstream, deliberative space to confront assumptions, map power, and consider harms before design. Using a case study in AI for HT, we demonstrate how RQ reveals overlooked sociocultural complexities and guides us away from surveillance based interventions toward survivor empowerment tools. While developed in the context of HT, RQ's five step structure can generalize to other domains, though the specific questions must be contextual. This paper situates RQ within a broader AI ethics philosophy that challenges instrumentalist norms and centers relational, reflexive responsibility.