Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Ethics and Information Technology
Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology 1/2018

17.08.2017 | Original Paper

Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract

verfasst von: Iyad Rahwan

Erschienen in: Ethics and Information Technology | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, ‘SITL = HITL + Social Contract.’
Vorheriger Artikel Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue
Nächster Artikel Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics

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
Literatur
Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., & hua Tan, Y. (2014). Design for values in software development. In J. van den Jeroen, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design. Dordrecht: Springer.
Allen, J., Guinn, C. I., & Horvtz, E. (1999). Mixed-initiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 14(5), 14–23.CrossRef
Amershi, S., Cakmak, M., Knox, W. B., & Kulesza, T. (2014). Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Magazine, 35(4), 105–120.CrossRef
Arrow, K. J. (2012). Social choice and individual values. New Haven: Yale University Press.MATH
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Baldassarri, D., & Grossman, G. (2011). Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(27), 11023–11027.CrossRef
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2017). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. arXiv preprint [arXiv:​1703.​09207].
Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573–1576.CrossRef
Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679.CrossRef
Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 209–227.CrossRef
Cakmak, M., Chao, C., & Thomaz, A. L. (2010). Designing interactions for robot active learners. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 2(2), 108–118.CrossRef
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183–186.CrossRef
Callejo, P., Cuevas, R., Cuevas, A., & Kotila, M. (2016). Independent auditing of online display advertising campaigns. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM workshop on hot topics in networks (HotNets) (pp. 120–126).
Castelfranchi, C. (2000). Artificial liars: Why computers will (necessarily) deceive us and each other. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(2), 113–119.CrossRef
Chen, Y., Lai, J. K., Parkes, D. C., & Procaccia, A. D. (2013). Truth, justice, and cake cutting. Games and Economic Behavior, 77(1), 284–297.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. A. (2014). The scored society: due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89, 1–33.
Conitzer, V., Brill, M., & Freeman, R. (2015). Crowdsourcing societal tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 1213–1217). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
Crandall, J. W. & Goodrich, M. A. (2001). Experiments in adjustable autonomy. In 2001 IEEE international conference on Systems, man, and cybernetics (Vol. 3, pp. 1624–1629). IEEE.
Cuzzillo, T. (2015). Real-world active learning: Applications and strategies for human-in-the-loop machine learning. Technical report, OâĂŹReilly.
Delvaux, M. (2016). Motion for a European Parliament resolution: with recommendations to the commission on civil law rules on robotics. Technical Report (2015/2103(INL)), European Commission.
Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398–415.CrossRef
Dinakar, K., Chen, J., Lieberman, H., Picard, R., & Filbin, R. (2015). Mixed-initiative real-time topic modeling & visualization for crisis counseling. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 417–426). ACM.
Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2016). AI assisted ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 149–156.CrossRef
Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions, 3(6), 16–23.CrossRef
Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. London: Profile books.
Gates, G., Ewing, J., Russell, K., & Watkins, D. (2015). How Volkswagen’s ‘defeat devices’ worked. New York Times.
Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006). The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science, 312(5770), 108–111.CrossRef
Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist, 97, 354–356.CrossRef
Haviland, W., Prins, H., McBride, B., & Walrath, D. (2013). Cultural anthropology: The human challenge. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Helbing, D., & Pournaras, E. (2015). Society: Build digital democracy. Nature, 527, 33–34.CrossRef
Henrich, J. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(1), 3–35.CrossRef
Hern, A. (2016). ‘partnership on artificial intelligence’ formed by Google, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, Microsoft and Apple. Technical report, The Guardian.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan, or, The matter, forme, and power of a common-wealth ecclesiasticall and civill. London: Andrew Crooke.
Horvitz, E. (1999). Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 159–166). ACM.
IEEE (2016). Ethically aligned design. Technical report, The IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems.
Johnson, M., Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P. J., Jonker, C. M., Van Riemsdijk, M. B., & Sierhuis, M. (2014). Coactive design: Designing support for interdependence in joint activity. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 43–69.CrossRef
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2016). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint [arXiv:​1609.​05807].
Leben, D. (2017). A rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology, 19, 107–115.CrossRef
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.CrossRef
Letham, B., Rudin, C., McCormick, T. H., Madigan, D., et al. (2015). Interpretable classifiers using rules and bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(3), 1350–1371.MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
Levy, S. (2010). The AI revolution is on. Wired.
Lippmann, W. (1927). The phantom public. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Littman, M. L. (2015). Reinforcement learning improves behaviour from evaluative feedback. Nature, 521(7553), 445–451.CrossRef
Liu, B. (2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 5(1), 1–167.CrossRef
Locke, J. (1689). Two treatises of government. Self Published.
Markoff, J. (2015). Machines of loving grace. Ecco.
Moulin, H., Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., & Procaccia, A. D. (2016). Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology. (2016). Preparing for the future of artificial intelligence. Technical report, Executive Office of the President.
Nisan, N., Roughgarden, T., Tardos, E., & Vazirani, V. V. (2007). Algorithmic game theory (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2011). Supercooperators: Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. New York: Simon and Schuster.
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
O’Reilly, T. (2016). Open data and algorithmic regulation. In B. Goldstein & L. Dyson (Eds.), Beyond transparency: Open data and the future of civic innovation. San Francisco: Code for America Press.
Orseau, L. & Armstrong, S. (2016). Safely interruptible agents. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence: 32nd Conference (UAI).
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRef
Pentland, A. S. (2013). The data-driven society. Scientific American, 309(4), 78–83.CrossRef
Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract.
Russakovsky, O., Deng, J., Su, H., Krause, J., Satheesh, S., Ma, S., et al. (2015). Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision, 115(3), 211–252.MathSciNetCrossRef
Scott, B. (2014). Visions of a techno-leviathan: The politics of the bitcoin blockchain. E-International Relations.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sheridan, T. B. (2006). Supervisory control. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 1025–1052). Hoboken: Wiley
Sigmund, K., De Silva, H., Traulsen, A., & Hauert, C. (2010). Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons. Nature, 466(7308), 861–863.CrossRef
Skyrms, B. (2014). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Standing Committee of the One Hundred Year Study of Artificial Intelligence (2016). Artificial intelligence and life in 2030. Technical report, Stanford University.
Sweeney, L. (2013). Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue, 11(3), 10.CrossRef
Tambe, M., Scerri, P., & Pynadath, D. V. (2002). Adjustable autonomy for the real world. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17(1), 171–228.MathSciNetMATH
Thomaz, A. L., & Breazeal, C. (2008). Teachable robots: Understanding human teaching behavior to build more effective robot learners. Artificial Intelligence, 172(6), 716–737.CrossRef
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.CrossRef
Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond facebook and google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 13, 203.
Turchin, P. (2015). Ultrasociety: How 10,000 years of war made humans the greatest cooperators on earth. Chaplin: Beresta Books.
Valentino-DeVries, J., Singer-Vine, J., & Soltani, A. (2012). Websites vary prices, deals based on users’ information. Wall Street Journal, 10, 60–68.
Van de Poel, I. (2013). Translating values into design requirements. In Philosophy and engineering: Reflections on practice, principles and process (pp. 253–266). Dordrecht: Springer.
Young, H. P. (2001). Individual strategy and social structure: An evolutionary theory of institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Metadaten
Titel
Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract
verfasst von
Iyad Rahwan
Publikationsdatum
17.08.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Ethics and Information Technology / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1388-1957
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8439
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Ethics and Information Technology 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

The “big red button” is too late: an alternative model for the ethical evaluation of AI systems

Original Paper

Embedded ethics: some technical and ethical challenges

Original Paper

Human-aligned artificial intelligence is a multiobjective problem

Original Paper

Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics

Editorial

Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue