AI incident ·
Proctoring Algorithm in Online California Bar Exam Flagged an Unusually High Number of Alleged Cheaters
In brief
An AI system built by Examsoft and deployed by California Bar'S Committee Of Bar Examiners allegedly harmed California Bar Exam Takers and Flagged California Bar Exam Takers.
- Risk domain
- Discrimination and Toxicity
- Occurred
- Coverage
- 2 reports
What happened
The proctoring algorithm used in a California bar exam cited a third of thousands of applicants as cheaters, resulting in allegations where exam takers were instructed to prove otherwise without seeing their incriminating video evidence.
Laws that address this harm
Policy angle: Classified under Discrimination and Toxicity (Unequal performance across groups) in the MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy; 5 recorded instruments address this use case in the United States.
- Colorado AI Act
- NYC Local Law 144 (automated employment decision tools)
- Illinois AI Video Interview Act
- Illinois HB 3773 (AI in employment, Human Rights Act amendment)
- NIST AI RMF
Matched from the record's risk domain and country to the instruments recorded here. A reviewer can correct the match in the repository (data/external/incident_overrides.yaml).
News reports (2)
Titles link to the original publisher; report text is not reproduced here.
Who was involved
- Alleged deployer
- California Bar'S Committee Of Bar Examiners
- Alleged developer
- Examsoft
- Alleged harmed party
- California Bar Exam Takers, Flagged California Bar Exam Takers
Classification (MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy)
- Risk domain
- Discrimination and Toxicity
- Risk subdomain
- 1.3 Unequal performance across groups
- Causal entity
- AI
- Intent
- Unintentional
- Timing
- Post-deployment
- Harm level
- none
- Sectors
- education, professional, scientific and technical activities
- Countries
- US
Risk entries describing this failure mode
Entries from the MIT AI Risk Repository coded to subdomain 1.3.
- Bias and discrimination (value embedding)
"Generative AI models may also be subject to the “value embedding” phenomenon.361 “Value embedding” refers to the fact that developers of generative AI models strive to minimize biased outputs by retraining their models...
- Impact on affected communities
"It is important to include the perspectives or concerns of communities that are affected by model outcomes when designing and building models. Failing to include these perspectives makes it difficult to understand the r...
- Unfair capability distribution
"Performing worse for some groups than others in a way that harms the worse-off group"
- Disparate Performance
The LLM’s performances can differ significantly across different groups of users. For example, the question-answering capability showed significant performance differences across different racial and social status groups...
- Fairness
Avoiding bias and ensuring no disparate performance
- Ideological Homogenization from Value Embedding
"The increasing integration of general purpose AI models into every-day life raises concerns around their embedded normative values. The reach of a small number of AI models to a large number of people around the world c...
- Fairness
This challenge appears when the learning model leads to a decision that is biased to some sensitive attributes... data itself could be biased, which results in unfair decisions. Therefore, this problem should be solved o...
- Increased labor
increased burden (e.g., time spent) or effort required by members of certain social groups to make systems or products work as well for them as others
Incidents in the same risk subdomain
- Washington State DOL's AI Phone System Reportedly Failed to Provide Spanish-Language Service to Callers Requesting Spanish
- UK Facial Recognition System Reportedly Exhibits Higher False Positive Rates for Black and Asian Subjects
- Infinite Campus AI-Driven Student Risk Model Leads to Cuts in Support for Nevada's Low-Income Schools
- Police Use of Facial Recognition Software Causes Wrongful Arrests Without Defendant Knowledge
- Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Algorithm Wrongly Flags 200,000 for Housing Benefit Fraud
- Facewatch Reported to Have Wrongfully Flagged Home Bargains Customer as Shoplifter
Source record: incident #131 on the AI Incident Database · all 2 reports