Description: A healthcare algorithm designed to equitably distribute caregiving resources drastically cut care hours for the disabled and elderly, leading to significant hardships and harm. Initially developed for fair resource allocation, the system ultimately faced legal challenges for its inability to accurately assess individual needs, resulting in reduced essential care and raising ethical concerns about AI in healthcare decision-making.
Entities
View all entitiesAlleged: State governments and Brant Fries developed an AI system deployed by State governments , Idaho state government , Arkansas state government , Washington DC government , Pennsylvania state government , Iowa state government and Missouri state government, which harmed Disabled people , Elderly people , Low-income people , Larkin Seiler and Tammy Dobbs.
CSETv1 Taxonomy Classifications
Taxonomy DetailsIncident Number
The number of the incident in the AI Incident Database.
603
Notes (special interest intangible harm)
Input any notes that may help explain your answers.
4.2 - The algorithm that cut Seiler's care in 2008 was declared unconstitutional by the court in 2016.
Special Interest Intangible Harm
An assessment of whether a special interest intangible harm occurred. This assessment does not consider the context of the intangible harm, if an AI was involved, or if there is characterizable class or subgroup of harmed entities. It is also not assessing if an intangible harm occurred. It is only asking if a special interest intangible harm occurred.
yes
Date of Incident Year
The year in which the incident occurred. If there are multiple harms or occurrences of the incident, list the earliest. If a precise date is unavailable, but the available sources provide a basis for estimating the year, estimate. Otherwise, leave blank.
Enter in the format of YYYY
2008
Date of Incident Month
The month in which the incident occurred. If there are multiple harms or occurrences of the incident, list the earliest. If a precise date is unavailable, but the available sources provide a basis for estimating the month, estimate. Otherwise, leave blank.
Enter in the format of MM
Date of Incident Day
The day on which the incident occurred. If a precise date is unavailable, leave blank.
Enter in the format of DD
Risk Subdomain
A further 23 subdomains create an accessible and understandable classification of hazards and harms associated with AI
1.3. Unequal performance across groups
Risk Domain
The Domain Taxonomy of AI Risks classifies risks into seven AI risk domains: (1) Discrimination & toxicity, (2) Privacy & security, (3) Misinformation, (4) Malicious actors & misuse, (5) Human-computer interaction, (6) Socioeconomic & environmental harms, and (7) AI system safety, failures & limitations.
- Discrimination and Toxicity
Entity
Which, if any, entity is presented as the main cause of the risk
AI
Timing
The stage in the AI lifecycle at which the risk is presented as occurring
Post-deployment
Intent
Whether the risk is presented as occurring as an expected or unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Intentional
Incident Reports
Reports Timeline
Going up against an algorithm was a battle unlike any other Larkin Seiler had faced.
Because of his cerebral palsy, the 40-year-old, who works at an environmental engineering firm and loves attending sports games of nearly any type, depends…
Variants
A "variant" is an incident that shares the same causative factors, produces similar harms, and involves the same intelligent systems as a known AI incident. Rather than index variants as entirely separate incidents, we list variations of incidents under the first similar incident submitted to the database. Unlike other submission types to the incident database, variants are not required to have reporting in evidence external to the Incident Database. Learn more from the research paper.
Similar Incidents
Did our AI mess up? Flag the unrelated incidents
Similar Incidents
Did our AI mess up? Flag the unrelated incidents