skip to main content
10.1145/3546155.3547288acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Suspicious Behavior: A fictional annotation tutorial

Published:08 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Suspicious Behavior is a fictional annotation tutorial inviting readers to critically examine machine learning datasets assembled for anomaly detection in surveillance footage (Figure 1). Mimicking existing annotation interfaces [11] and practices [12] the tutorial, although fictive, provides insight into the hidden work of crowdsourced labor and how annotators engage in decision making (Figure 2). Readers in the role of annotator-trainees, advance through an introduction and three ‘advanced modules’ of the tutorial performing what is called ‘Human Intelligence Tasks.’ The assignment is to spot suspicious behavior in video segments. Throughout the interactive story the reader gets trained for an optimized annotation workflow, balancing between accuracy and efficiency.

Within the interactive story YouTube video montages are used to contextualize the hidden human labor of image annotators as fundamental for artificial intelligent. Research on dataset annotation on the other hand suggest that undesired bias gets embedded into datasets through the individual subjective annotator [3,7]. However, traversing through Suspicious Behavior it becomes gradually evident that annotation work is more about matching labels with images than making meaning out of them. Image annotation can be understood as a ‘sense-making practice’[10] in which visual images are translated into operational data. In the process of translating images into data they must be classified in some way [8]. Thus, classifications are embedded in machine learning datasets and become naturalized as part of AI infrastructures [1]. Therefore, understanding practices of image annotation and in which ways operative images as interfaces [6] facilitate human-image-machine interpretation is crucial. Inspired by artistic inquiries of exposing [5], excavating [2] and exhaustively watching [13] image datasets Suspicious Behavior expands on scrutinizing the origins, classification and categorization of image datasets by giving the audience the opportunity to explore and experience aspects of video dataset annotation. The artistic research for Suspicious Behavior involved exploring publicly available anomaly detection video datasets, documentation describing the assembly of those datasets as well as designing a video annotation interfaces. Insights of the artistic research are weaved into Suspicious Behavior. For example, by simulating existing image annotation interfaces Suspicious Behavior enforces optimized workflows which do not allow time for reflection. The reader experiences how the client oversees defining of classes, and control image interpretation through designed annotation interfaces and embedded instructions. Twelve posters instruct the annotator of Suspicious Behavior what to look for (Figure 3). Thus, gradually the reader realizes that definitions are imposed on annotators and passed onto datasets [10].

As a critical artifact Suspicious Behavior presents an approach to examine the power relationships between actors in the annotation apparatus. How is image interpretation distributed along the pipeline of assembling datasets? Who gets to decide what is suspicious or normal? Annotators along with data curators, project managers, engineers and authorities like law enforcement are part of the annotation apparatus shaping the dataset, which in turn frames what machines perceive as anomaly or normal. In addition, technical image interpretation in form of search queries and platform algorithms are enmeshed into practices of dataset assembly [9]. Nevertheless, as experienced through Suspicious Behavior agency is not equally distributed. In this manner the artwork criticizes the division of labor, in which the work of the annotator is devalued [4]. Hence, Suspicious Behavior also offers a starting point to discuss alternatives: What needs to change in order to achieve annotation workflows which put sustainable and ethical working conditions in focus?

References

  1. 1. Kate Crawford. 2021. Atlas of AI: power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2. Kate Crawford and Trevor Paglen. 2019. Excavating AI: The Politics of Images in Machine Learning Training Sets. Retrieved March 10, 2019 from https://www.excavating.ai.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3. Bhavya Ghai, Q. Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, and Klaus Mueller. 2020. Measuring Social Biases of Crowd Workers using Counterfactual Queries. arXiv:2004.02028 [cs].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4. Mary L. Gray and Suri Siddharth. 2019. Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York..Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5. Adam Harvey and Jules LaPlace. 2021. Exposing.ai. Exposing.ai. Retrieved January 20, 2022 from https://exposing.ai/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6. Aud Sissel Hoel. 2018. Operative Images. Inroads to a New Paradigm of Media Theory. In L. Feiersinger, K. Friedrich, and M. Queisner, eds., Image – Action – Space: Situating the Screen in Visual Practice. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 11–28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7. Christoph Hube, Besnik Fetahu, and Ujwal Gadiraju. 2019. Understanding and Mitigating Worker Biases in the Crowdsourced Collection of Subjective Judgments. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8. Lauren F. Klein and Catherine D'Ignazio. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9. Nicolas Malevé. 2020. On the data set's ruins. AI & SOCIETY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10. Milagros Miceli, Martin Schuessler, and Tianling Yang. 2020. Between Subjectivity and Imposition: Power Dynamics in Data Annotation for Computer Vision. arXiv:2007.14886 [cs].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11. Mathew Monfort, Carl Vondrick, Aude Oliva, 2020. Moments in Time Dataset: One Million Videos for Event Understanding. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 42, 2: 502–508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. 12. Sangmin Oh, Anthony Hoogs, Amitha Perera, 2011. A large-scale benchmark dataset for event recognition in surveillance video. CVPR 2011, 3153–3160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13. Everest Pipkin. 2020. On Lacework: watching an entire machine-learning dataset. Retrieved March 8, 2021 from https://unthinking.photography/articles/on-lacework.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    NordiCHI '22: Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference
    October 2022
    1091 pages
    ISBN:9781450396998
    DOI:10.1145/3546155

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 8 October 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate379of1,572submissions,24%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)64
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format