Title Four Bottomless Errors and the Collapse of Statistical Fairness

The AI ethics of statistical fairness is an error, the approach should be abandoned, and the accumulated academic work deleted. The argument proceeds by identifying four recurring mistakes within statistical fairness. One conflates fairness with equality, which confines thinking to similars being treated similarly. The second and third errors derive from a perspectival ethical view which functions by negating others and their viewpoints. The final mistake constrains fairness to work within predefined social groups instead of allowing unconstrained fairness to subsequently define group composition. From the nature of these misconceptions, the larger argument follows. Because the errors are integral to how statistical fairness works, attempting to resolve the difficulties only deepens them. Consequently, the errors cannot be corrected without undermining the larger project, and statistical fairness collapses from within. While the collapse ends a failure in ethics, it also provokes distinct possibilities for fairness, data, and algorithms. Quickly indicating some of these directions is a secondary aim of the paper, and one that aligns with what fairness has consistently meant and done since Aristotle.

Publication Details

Journal
ArXiv.org
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.36548.95367
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Plant Pathogens and Resistance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.75
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Title Four Bottomless Errors and the Collapse of Statistical Fairness

1 citations
ArXiv.org
Plant Pathogens and Resistance
1.75
article

Title Four Bottomless Errors and the Collapse of Statistical Fairness

article en
1 citations

Abstract

The AI ethics of statistical fairness is an error, the approach should be abandoned, and the accumulated academic work deleted. The argument proceeds by identifying four recurring mistakes within statistical fairness. One conflates fairness with equality, which confines thinking to similars being treated similarly. The second and third errors derive from a perspectival ethical view which functions by negating others and their viewpoints. The final mistake constrains fairness to work within predefined social groups instead of allowing unconstrained fairness to subsequently define group composition. From the nature of these misconceptions, the larger argument follows. Because the errors are integral to how statistical fairness works, attempting to resolve the difficulties only deepens them. Consequently, the errors cannot be corrected without undermining the larger project, and statistical fairness collapses from within. While the collapse ends a failure in ethics, it also provokes distinct possibilities for fairness, data, and algorithms. Quickly indicating some of these directions is a secondary aim of the paper, and one that aligns with what fairness has consistently meant and done since Aristotle.

ArXiv.org
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Plant Pathogens and Resistance
1.75
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Title Four Bottomless Errors and the Collapse of Statistical Fairness · ArXiv.org (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS