nach oben

Ethics and Information Technology

Erschienen in:

Open Access 05.05.2016 | Original Paper

AI assisted ethics

verfasst von: Amitai Etzioni, Oren Etzioni

Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The growing number of ‘smart’ instruments, those equipped with AI, has raised concerns because these instruments make autonomous decisions; that is, they act beyond the guidelines provided them by programmers. Hence, the question the makers and users of smart instrument (e.g., driver-less cars) face is how to ensure that these instruments will not engage in unethical conduct (not to be conflated with illegal conduct). The article suggests that to proceed we need a new kind of AI program—oversight programs—that will monitor, audit, and hold operational AI programs accountable.

Vorheriger Artikel Profiling vandalism in Wikipedia: A Schauerian approach to justification

Nächster Artikel More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Stuart Russell of University of California Berkeley stated, “You would want [a robot that does everyday activities] preloaded with a pretty good set of values” (Goldhill 2015).

Philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson described a situation called “the Trolley Problem,” which raises the question whether a runaway train is about to run over a group of five people on the tracks, but their deaths could be averted by flipping a switch that would divert the train onto another track, where it would kill one person (Lin 2013).

Joshua D. Greene describes a number of ethical dilemmas that generally fit into the category of the “trolley problem.” These include “switch” cases, in which throwing a switch will turn the trolley away from some number of people toward a single person, or “footbridge” cases in which one must push a person into the path of the trolley to save others’ lives. He also discusses similar famous ethical questions studied by researchers, such as the question whether it is immoral to allow a child to drown in a shallow pond to avoid muddying one’s clothes, whether one is morally obligated to donate money to save others’ lives, and more (Greene 2014).

Jean-Francois Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan apply this question to the issue of driverless cars; as driverless cars (“autonomous vehicles,” or AVs) and other forms of use of artificial intelligence become more widespread. They examined whether individuals would be comfortable with AVs programmed to be utilitarian and found that the answer was generally yes (Bonnefon et al. 2015).

One scholar at the National Science Foundation points out that technology currently outstrips knowledge of how to assign liability for robots’ ethical and legal failures (The Economist 2014).

Professor Patrick Lin points out that algorithms cannot make “an instinctive but nonetheless bad split-second decision” the way humans can, and thus the threshold for liability may be higher (Lin 2013).

Slobogin and Schumacher (1993: 757) recommend that the Supreme Court draw on public opinion polls to determine that about societal expectations of privacy. Similar suggestions were made by Fradella, Morrow, Fischer, and Ireland. They conducted a survey of 589 individuals (Fradella et al. 2010–2011: 293–94).

Bonnefon et al. (2015) applied this idea to finding which values ought to guide self driving cars.

For example, Nielsen has developed a marketing system for targeting very specific demographics with financial and investment products based on age, affluence, the presence of children in the home, and certain purchasing habits. These include such specific target consumer groups as “Y2-54: City Strivers” and “F4-56: Economizers” (Nielsen 2015); Ted Cruz’ campaign in Iowa relied on psychological profiles to determine the best ways to canvass individual voters in the state (Hamburger 2015).

Lexicographic preferences are those in which “respondents have a ranking of the attributes [consider important], but their choice of an alternative is based solely on the level of their most important attribute(s)” (Campbell et al. 2006).

“Lifeboat ethics” refers to an ethical dilemma outlined by Garrett Hardin in 1974, which describes a situation in which a lifeboat nearly full to capacity must consider whether or not to bring aboard ten additional passengers out of 100 people in the water. The purpose of lifeboat ethics-style philosophical discussions is not to tell anyone what is ethically correct in any given situation, but rather to help individuals to clarify their own values.

This is one component of a larger school of ethics, “moral reasoning.” Moral reasoning encourages “individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do” (Richardson 2014).

Across many different situations, it is well-established that “attitudes are poor predictors of behavior” (Ajzen and Fishbein 2005). See also: Azjen et al. 2004.

For an in-depth discussion of the different treatment afforded to less and more sensitive information, see: [redacted].

See id.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Azjen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1108–1121.CrossRef

Boaz, D. (1999). Key concepts of libertarianism. Cato Institute. January 1. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism.

Bonnefon, J., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2015). Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics: Are we ready for utilitarian cars? Computers and Society. October 12. http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03346.

Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G., & Scarpa, R. (2006). Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: Consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates. Working Paper, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12224/1/wp060128.pdf.

Dellinger, A. J. (2015) Tim Wu says Google is degrading the Web to favor its own products. The Daily Dot. June 29. http://www.dailydot.com/technology/google-search-tim-wu-yelp/.

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87.CrossRef

Etzioni, A. (1988) The moral dimension. New York: The Free Press.

Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2016). Keeping AI Legal. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law (Forthcoming).

Fleischer, P. (2015). Privacy and future challenges. Speech, Amsterdam Privacy Conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 23–26.

Fradella, H. F, et al. (2010–2011). Quantifying Katz: Empirically measuring ‘Reasonable Expectations of Privacy’ in the fourth amendment context. American Journal of Criminal Law 38, 289–373.

Goldhill, O. (2015). Human values should be programmed into robots, argues a computer scientist. Quartz. October 31. http://qz.com/538260/human-values-should-be-programmed-into-robots-argues-a-computer-scientist/.

Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro) science matters for ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695–726.MathSciNetCrossRef

Hamburger, T. (2015). Cruz campaign credits psychological data and analytics for its rising success. The Washington Post. December 13, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-campaign-credits-psychological-data-and-analytics-for-its-rising-success/2015/12/13/4cb0baf8-9dc5-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html.

Hardin, G. (1974). Lifeboat ethics: The case against helping the poor. Psychology Today.

Homer. (1978) Odyssey (J. H. Finley, Jr. Trans.). Boston: Harvard University Press.

Institute for Statistics Education. Glossary of statistical terms test–retest reliability. http://www.statistics.com.

Jacobellis v. Ohio. (1964). 378 U.S. 184.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Firrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Kaplan, J. (2015). Who put the robot in charge? Medium, September 22. https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/who-put-the-robot-in-charge-408a47335176#.mb8mqqs9p.

Lin, P. (2013). The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic. October 8. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/280360/.

Lohr, S. (2015). Data-ism: The revolution transforming decision making, consumer behavior, and almost everything else. London: OneWorld Publications.

Marcus, G. (2012). Moral machines. New York: The New Yorker.

Markoff, J. (2013). The rapid advance of artificial intelligence. The New York Times. October 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/technology/the-rapid-advance-of-artificial-intelligence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Big data. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Nielsen. (2015). Nielsen P$YCLE Lifestage Groups. https://segmentationsolutions.nielsen.com/mybestsegments/Default.jsp?ID=8010&pageName=Learn%2BMore&menuOption=learnmore. Accessed 17 Dec.

Pariser, E. (2011). What the Internet knows about you. CNN. May 22. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-22/opinion/pariser.filter.bubble.

Richardson, H. S. (2014). Moral reasoning. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition), Ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-moral/.

Rossi, F. (2015). How do you teach a machine to be moral? The Washington Post. November 5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/11/05/how-do-you-teach-a-machine-to-be-moral/.

Science Daily. (2015). New algorithm lets autonomous robots divvy up assembly tasks on the fly. May 27. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527142100.htm.

Slobogin, C., & Schumacher, J. E. (1993). Reasonable expectations of privacy and autonomy in fourth amendment cases: An empirical look at understandings recognized and permitted by society. Duke Law Journal, 42, 727–775.CrossRef

Tegmark, M, et al. (2015). An open letter: Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. Future of Life Institute. http://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter/.

The Economist. (2014). That thou art mindful of him. March 29.

The Economist. (2015). Rise of the machines. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21650526-artificial-intelligence-scares-peopleexcessively-so-rise-machines.

Walzer, M. (1984). Spheres of Justice: A defense of pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic books.

Westin, A. (2003) Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues 59(2). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-4560.00072/epdf.

Wolchover, N. (2015). Concerns of an artificial intelligence pioneer. Quanta. April 21. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150421-concerns-of-an-artificial-intelligence-pioneer/.

Wrong, D. (1995). The problem of order: What unites and divides society. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Titel: AI assisted ethics
verfasst von: Amitai Etzioni
Oren Etzioni
Publikationsdatum: 05.05.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1388-1957
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8439
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9400-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Hacking the brain: brain–computer interfacing technology and the ethics of neurosecurity

Profiling vandalism in Wikipedia: A Schauerian approach to justification

Building theory from consumer reactions to RFID: discovering Connective Proximity

Against the moral Turing test: accountable design and the moral reasoning of autonomous systems

More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification

Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: a critical counterview

Premium Partner