Top

Minds and Machines

Published in:

25-04-2020

Moral Gridworlds: A Theoretical Proposal for Modeling Artificial Moral Cognition

Author: Julia Haas

Published in: Minds and Machines | Issue 2/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

I describe a suite of reinforcement learning environments in which artificial agents learn to value and respond to moral content and contexts. I illustrate the core principles of the framework by characterizing one such environment, or “gridworld,” in which an agent learns to trade-off between monetary profit and fair dealing, as applied in a standard behavioral economic paradigm. I then highlight the core technical and philosophical advantages of the learning approach for modeling moral cognition, and for addressing the so-called value alignment problem in AI.

previous article A Normative Approach to Artificial Moral Agency

next article Towards the Ethical Publication of Country of Origin Information (COI) in the Asylum Process

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

inform now

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!

inform now

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!

inform now

The Ultimatum Game appears to track fairness. This does not yet mean that it explains fairness, i.e., that it provides an account of ‘how fairness works.’ However, to model fairness, the fairness gridworld only needs such a benchmark of human behavior, not a full-fledged or mechanistic explanation of it. On the contrary, the gridworld may be one way to begin looking inside the ‘black box’ of fairness (for more on this last idea, see Sect. 3.2) Thank you to an anonymous reviewer to pressing me on this point.

This is also known as an indefinite horizon task, i.e., an interaction which lasts an indefinite period of time, but eventually terminates.

Thanks to Ivan Gonzalez-Cabrera for suggesting this point.

Interest in modeling a three-way relation between monetary value, fairness, and honesty considerations may further weigh in favor of a MORL rather than a specification approach (see Sect. 2.3).

Although its implementation of a consequentialist ethics (and, specifically, Asimov’s three laws for governing robotic behavior) technically makes the proposal a model of normative moral AI, the paper’s heavy emphasis on modeling the naturalistic simulation theory of cognition lends to many of the objectives of what I am calling the (descriptive) moral psychological approach.

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pressing me on this point. For further discussion concerning the difficulties of context identification in machine ethics, see Winfield et al. (2019).

Adamson, G., Havens, J. C., & Chatila, R. (2019). Designing a value-driven future for ethical autonomous and intelligent systems. Proceedings of the IEEE,107(3), 518–525.

Allen, C., Smit, I., & Wallach, W. (2005). Artificial morality: Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics and Information Technology,7(3), 149–155.

Allen, C., & Wallach, W. (2012). Moral machines: Contradiction in terms or abdication of human responsibility. In Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (p. 55–68). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Alvard, M. S. (2004). The ultimatum game, fairness, and cooperation among big game hunters. In J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, & H. Gintis (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality (pp. 413–435). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565.

Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2018). GenEth: a general ethical dilemma analyzer. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics,9(1), 337–357.

Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., & Armen, C. (2006). MedEthEx: a prototype medical ethics advisor. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 1759). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.

Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., & Berenz, V. (2019). A value-driven eldercare robot: Virtual and physical instantiations of a case-supported principle-based behavior paradigm. Proceedings of the IEEE,107(3), 526–540.

Arnold, T., Kasenberg, D., & Scheutz, M. (2017). Value alignment or misalignment—What will keep systems accountable?. In Workshops at the thirty-first AAAI conference on artificial intelligence.

Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review,104, 671.

Bechtel, W., & Mundale, J. (1999). Multiple realizability revisited: Linking cognitive and neural states. Philosophy of Science,66(2), 175–207.

Bengio, Y., & LeCun, Y. (2007). Scaling learning algorithms towards AI. Large-scale Kernel Machines,34(5), 1–41.

Berns, G. S., Bell, E., Capra, C. M., Prietula, M. J., Moore, S., Anderson, B., et al. (2012). The price of your soul: Neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,367(1589), 754–762.

Bigman, Y. E., Waytz, A., Alterovitz, R., & Gray, K. (2019). Holding robots responsible: The elements of machine morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,23(5), 365–368.

Boksem, M. A., & De Cremer, D. (2010). Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Social Neuroscience,5(1), 118–128.

Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science,352(6293), 1573–1576.

Borenstein, J., & Arkin, R. (2019). Robots, ethics, and intimacy: the need for scientific research. In D. Berkich & M. V. d’Alfonso (Eds.), On the Cognitive, Ethical, and Scientific Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 134, pp. 299–309). Springer.

Botvinick, M., Ritter, S., Wang, J. X., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Blundell, C., & Hassabis, D. (2019). Reinforcement learning, fast and slow. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.006.CrossRef

Bremner, P., Dennis, L. A., Fisher, M., & Winfield, A. F. (2019). On proactive, transparent, and verifiable ethical reasoning for robots. Proceedings of the IEEE,107(3), 541–561.

Brown, D. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brumbaugh, S. M., Sanchez, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2008). Attitudes toward gay marriage in states undergoing marriage law transformation. Journal of Marriage and Family,70(2), 345–359.

Cave, S., Nyrup, R., Vold, K., & Weller, A. (2018). Motivations and risks of machine ethics. Proceedings of the IEEE,107(3), 562–574.

Cervantes, J. A., López, S., Rodríguez, L. F., Cervantes, S., Cervantes, F., & Ramos, F. (2019). Artificial moral agents: A survey of the current status. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00151-x.CrossRef

Corradi-Dell’Acqua, C., Civai, C., Rumiati, R. I., & Fink, G. R. (2013). Disentangling self-and fairness-related neural mechanisms involved in the ultimatum game: an fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,8(4), 424–431.

Crawford, K., & Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature,538(7625), 311–313.

Crockett, M. J. (2013). Models of morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,17(8), 363–366.

Crockett, M. J. (2016). How formal models can illuminate mechanisms of moral judgment and decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science,25(2), 85–90.

Crockett, M. J., Siegel, J. Z., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2017). Moral transgressions corrupt neural representations of value. Nature Neuroscience,20(6), 879.

Cushman, F. (2015). From moral concern to moral constraint. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences,3, 58–62.

Debove, S., Baumard, N., & André, J. B. (2016). Models of the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game: A review and classification. Evolution Andhuman Behavior, 37(3), 245–254.

De Sio, F. S. (2017). Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,20(2), 411–429.

Dennis, L., Fisher, M., Slavkovik, M., & Webster, M. (2016). Formal verification of ethical choices in autonomous systems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,77, 1–14.

Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2017). What matters and how it matters: a choice-theoretic representation of moral theories. Philosophical Review,126(4), 421–479.

Doran, D., Schulz, S., & Besold, T. R. (2017). What does explainable AI really mean? A new conceptualization of perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.00794.

Doris, J. M. (2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dretske, F. (1994). If you can't make one, you don't know how it works. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 19, 468–482.

Driver, J. (2005). Normative ethics. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy (pp. 31–62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elgin, C. Z. (2017). True enough. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Everitt, T., Krakovna, V., Orseau, L., Hutter, M., & Legg, S. (2017). Reinforcement learning with a corrupted reward channel. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1705.08417.

Everitt, T., Lea, G., & Hutter, M. (2018). AGI safety literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01109.

Farrell, J. (1987). Cheap talk, coordination, and entry. The Rand Journal of Economics,18(1), 34–39.MathSciNet

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (2003). Theories of fairness and reciprocity–evidence and economic applications. In Advances in economics and econometrics, 8th World Congress, Econometric Society Monographs.

Feng, C., Luo, Y. J., & Krueger, F. (2015). Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: A coordinate-based meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping,36(2), 591–602.

Flanagan, O., Sarkissian, H., & Wong, D. (2007). Naturalizing ethics. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 1. The evolution of morality: Adaptations and innateness (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fleetwood, J. (2017). Public health, ethics, and autonomous vehicles. American Journal of Public Health,107(4), 532–537.

Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347–369.MATH

Gábor, Z., Kalmár, Z., & Szepesvári, C. (1998, July). Multi-criteria reinforcement learning. In ICML (Vol. 98, pp. 197–205). Chicago.

Glimcher, P. W. (2011). Foundations of neuroeconomic analysis. Oxford: OUP USA.

Gogoll, J., & Müller, J. F. (2017). Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Science and Engineering Ethics,23(3), 681–700.

Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,3(4), 367–388.

Hadfield-Menell, D., Milli, S., Abbeel, P., Russell, S. J., & Dragan, A. (2017). Inverse reward design. In Advances in neural information processing systems, (pp. 6765–6774).

Hartmann, S. (1996). The world as a process: Simulations in the natural and social sciences. in Hegselmann, Mueller, and Troitzsch 1996: 77–100.

Hass, J. (2019). Valuation mechanisms in moral cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18002686.

Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., et al. (2010a). Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science,327(5972), 1480–1484.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010b). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,33(2–3), 61–83.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010c). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,466(7302), 29.

Himmelreich, J. (2018). Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,21(3), 669–684.

Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé III, H., Dudik, M., & Wallach, H. (2019). Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–16).

Honarvar, A. R., & Ghasem-Aghaee, N. (2009). Casuist BDI-agent: a new extended BDI architecture with the capability of ethical reasoning. In International conference on artificial intelligence and computational intelligence (pp. 86–95). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., Van der Stigchel, S., Slotboom, J., Dalmaijer, E. S., & Theeuwes, J. (2015). Disentangling attentional deficits in psychopathy using visual search: Failures in the use of contextual information. Personality and Individual Differences,86, 132–138.

Howard, D., & Muntean, I. (2017). Artificial moral cognition: moral functionalism and autonomous moral agency. In Philosophy and computing (pp. 121–159). Cham: Springer.

Iyer, R., Li, Y., Li, H., Lewis, M., Sundar, R., & Sycara, K. (2018). Transparency and explanation in deep reinforcement learning neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (pp. 144–150).

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence,1(9), 389–399.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 728–741.

Kamm, F. M. (2008). Intricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities, and permissable harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ku, H. H., & Hung, Y. C. (2019). Framing effects of per-person versus aggregate prices in group meals. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,18(1), 43–52.

Larson, J., Mattu, S., Kirchner, L., & Angwin, J. (2016). How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica,5, 9.

Leike, J., Martic, M., Krakovna, V., Ortega, P.A., Everitt, T., Lefrancq, A., Orseau, L. & Legg, S. (2017). AI safety gridworlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09883.

Liu, C., Xu, X., & Hu, D. (2014). Multiobjective reinforcement learning: A comprehensive overview. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems,45(3), 385–398.

Lugo, L., & Cooperman, A. (2013) A Portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center Survey of U.S. Jews. Available online at: https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

Malle, B. F. (2016). Integrating robot ethics and machine morality: The study and design of moral competence in robots. Ethics and Information Technology,18(4), 243–256.

Mannor, S., & Shimkin, N. (2004). A geometric approach to multi-criterion reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 325–360.MathSciNetMATH

Marchetti, A., Baglio, F., Massaro, D., Griffanti, L., Rossetto, F., Sangiuliano Intra, F., et al. (2019). Can psychological labels influence the decision-making process in an unfair condition? Behavioral and neural evidences using the ultimatum game task. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics,12(2), 105.

May, J. (2018). Regard for reason in the moral mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

May, J. (2019). Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19000967.CrossRef

Millar, J., Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. A. (2017). Ethics settings for autonomous vehicles (pp. 20–34). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Moor, J. H. (2006). The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems,21(4), 18–21.

Morgan, M. S. (1999). Learning from models. Ideas in Context,52, 347–388.

Nowak, M. A., Page, K. M., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science,289(5485), 1773–1775.

Nyholm, S., & Smids, J. (2016). The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,19(5), 1275–1289.

Omohundro, S. M. (2008). The basic AI drives. In AGI (Vol. 171, pp. 483–492).

Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2011). Neurobiology of economic choice: A good-based model. Annual Review of Neuroscience,34, 333–359.

Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rand, D. G., Tarnita, C. E., Ohtsuki, H., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous Ultimatum Game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,110(7), 2581–2586.MathSciNetMATH

Roff, H. Expected utilitarianism, manuscript.

Rosen, J. B., Rott, E., Ebersbach, G., & Kalbe, E. (2015). Altered moral decision-making in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders,21(10), 1191–1199.

Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. Ai Magazine,36(4), 105–114.

Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.MATH

Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science,300(5626), 1755–1758.

Scheutz, M., & Malle, B. F. (2017). Moral robots. The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics, Nueva York, Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Schroeder, T., Roskies, A. L., & Nichols, S. B. (2010). Moral motivation. In J. Doris (Ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shenhav, A., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Moral judgments recruit domain-general valuation mechanisms to integrate representations of probability and magnitude. Neuron,67(4), 667–677.

Shevlin, H. De-skilling and social necessity, manuscript.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Mallon, R., Mccoy, T., & Hull, J. G. (2008). Intention, temporal order, and moral judgments. Mind & Language,23(1), 90–106.

Soares, N., Fallenstein, B., Armstrong, S., & Yudkowsky, E. (2015). Corrigibility. In Workshops at the twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence.

Sripada, C. S., & Stich, S. (2005). A framework for the psychology of norms. The Innate Mind,2, 280–301.

Sripada, C. S., & Stich, S. (2006). A framework for the psychology of norms. The Innate Mind, 2, 280–301.

Sterelny, K., & Fraser, B. (2017). Evolution and moral realism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,68(4), 981–1006.

Sutton, R. S. (2019). The bitter lesson. http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html.

Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Introduction to reinforcement learning (vol. 135). Cambridge: MIT press.

Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press.

Taylor, J., Yudkowsky, E., LaVictoire, P., & Critch, A. (2016). Alignment for advanced machine learning systems. Berkeley: Machine Intelligence Research Institute.

Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. Journal of economic perspectives,2(4), 195–206.

Tracer, D. (2004). Market integration, reciprocity and fairness in rural papua new guinea: Results from a twovillage ultimatum game study. Artefactual Field Experiments 00112. The Field Experiments Website. Available online at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/artefa/00112.html.

Vallor, S. (2015). Moral deskilling and upskilling in a new machine age: Reflections on the ambiguous future of character. Philosophy & Technology,28(1), 107–124.

Vamplew, P., Dazeley, R., Foale, C., Firmin, S., & Mummery, J. (2018). Human-aligned artificial intelligence is a multiobjective problem. Ethics and Information Technology,20(1), 27–40.

Vanderelst, D., & Winfield, A. (2018). An architecture for ethical robots inspired by the simulation theory of cognition. Cognitive Systems Research,48, 56–66.

Van Moffaert, K., Drugan, M. M., & Nowé, A. (2013). Hypervolume-based multi-objective reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (pp. 352-366). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Van Moffaert, K., & Nowé, A. (2014). Multi-objective reinforcement learning using sets of pareto dominating policies. The Journal of Machine LearningResearch, 15(1), 3483–3512.MathSciNetMATH

Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2008). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wallach, W., Franklin, S., & Allen, C. (2010). A conceptual and computational model of moral decision making in human and artificial agents. Topics in Cognitive Science,2(3), 454–485.

Wallach, W., & Marchant, G. (2019). Toward the agile and comprehensive international governance of AI and Robotics. Proceedings of the IEEE,107(3), 505–508.

Wei, C., Zheng, L., Che, L., Cheng, X., Li, L., & Guo, X. (2018). Social support modulates neural responses to unfairness in the ultimatum game. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 182.

Winfield, A. (2019). An updated round up of ethical principles of robotics and AI [Blog post]. Retrieved from: http://alanwinfield.blogspot.com/2019/04/an-updated-round-up-of-ethical.html?m=1.

Winfield, A. F., Michael, K., Pitt, J., & Evers, V. (2019). Machine ethics: the design and governance of ethical AI and autonomous systems. Proceedings of the IEEE,107(3), 509–517.

Wolf, S. (1982). Moral saints. The Journal of Philosophy, 79(8), 419–439.

Woodward, James. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195155270.001.0001.CrossRef

Yang, R., Sun, X., & Narasimhan, K. (2019). A Generalized Algorithm for Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning and Policy Adaptation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 14610–14621).

Zhong, S., Israel, S., Shalev, I., Xue, H., Ebstein, R. P., et al. (2010). Dopamine D4 receptor gene associated with fairness preference in ultimatum game. PLoSONE, 5(11), e13765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013765.CrossRef

Title: Moral Gridworlds: A Theoretical Proposal for Modeling Artificial Moral Cognition
Author: Julia Haas
Publication date: 25-04-2020
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Minds and Machines / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0924-6495
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8641
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09524-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Towards the Ethical Publication of Country of Origin Information (COI) in the Asylum Process

Analysing the Combined Health, Social and Economic Impacts of the Corovanvirus Pandemic Using Agent-Based Social Simulation

The Ethical Governance of the Digital During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Abstraction/Representation Account of Computation and Subjective Experience

A Normative Approach to Artificial Moral Agency

Premium Partner