Philosophical Foundations of GeoAI: Exploring Sustainability, Diversity, and Bias in GeoAI and Spatial Data Science

Krzysztof Janowicz
3/27/2023
cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

This chapter presents some of the fundamental assumptions and principles that could form the philosophical foundation of GeoAI and spatial data science. Instead of reviewing the well-established characteristics of spatial data (analysis), including interaction, neighborhoods, and autocorrelation, the chapter highlights themes such as sustainability, bias in training data, diversity in schema knowledge, and the (potential lack of) neutrality of GeoAI systems from a unifying ethical perspective. Reflecting on our profession's ethical implications will assist us in conducting potentially disruptive research more responsibly, identifying pitfalls in designing, training, and deploying GeoAI-based systems, and developing a shared understanding of the benefits but also potential dangers of artificial intelligence and machine learning research across academic fields, all while sharing our unique (geo)spatial perspective with others.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{janowicz2023philosophical,
  title  = {Philosophical Foundations of GeoAI: Exploring Sustainability, Diversity, and Bias in GeoAI and Spatial Data Science},
  author = {Krzysztof Janowicz},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2304.06508},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06508v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2304.06508.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2304.06508)

Discussion