  Why do biased predictions arise? What interventions can prevent them? We
evaluate 8.2 million algorithmic predictions of math performance from
$\approx$400 AI engineers, each of whom developed an algorithm under a randomly
assigned experimental condition. Our treatment arms modified programmers'
incentives, training data, awareness, and/or technical knowledge of AI ethics.
We then assess out-of-sample predictions from their algorithms using randomized
audit manipulations of algorithm inputs and ground-truth math performance for
20K subjects. We find that biased predictions are mostly caused by biased
training data. However, one-third of the benefit of better training data comes
through a novel economic mechanism: Engineers exert greater effort and are more
responsive to incentives when given better training data. We also assess how
performance varies with programmers' demographic characteristics, and their
performance on a psychological test of implicit bias (IAT) concerning gender
and careers. We find no evidence that female, minority and low-IAT engineers
exhibit lower bias or discrimination in their code. However, we do find that
prediction errors are correlated within demographic groups, which creates
performance improvements through cross-demographic averaging. Finally, we
quantify the benefits and tradeoffs of practical managerial or policy
interventions such as technical advice, simple reminders, and improved
incentives for decreasing algorithmic bias.
