scholarly journals A criticism of AI ethics guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Mihály Héder
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Social Control ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Positive Potential ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Current Wave ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
General Technology

This paper investigates the current wave of Artificial Intelligence Ethics GUidelines (AIGUs). The goal is not to provide a broad survey of the details of such efforts; instead, the reasons for the proliferation of such guidelines is investigated. Two main research questions are pursued. First, what is the justification for the proliferation of AIGUs, and what are the reasonable goals and limitations of such projects? Second, what are the specific concerns of AI that are so unique that general technology regulation cannot cover them? The paper reveals that the development of AI guidelines is part of a decades-long trend of an ever-increasing express need for stronger social control of technology, and that many of the concerns of the AIGUs are not specific to the technology itself, but are rather about transparency and human oversight. Nevertheless, the positive potential of the situation is that the intense world-wide focus on AIGUs will yield such profound guidelines that the regulation of other technologies may want to follow suite.

SELF-IMPOSED ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR AI IN EDUCATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anri Leimanis
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
The Self ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Educational Institutions ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Global Discourse ◽  
The Common ◽  
Ethics Guidelines

Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications to education have encouraged an extensive global discourse on the underlying ethical principles and values. In a response numerous research institutions, companies, public agencies and non-governmental entities around the globe have published their own guidelines and / or policies for ethical AI. Even though the aim for most of the guidelines is to maximize the benefits that AI delivers to education, the policies differ significantly in content as well as application. In order to facilitate further discussion about the ethical principles, responsibilities of educational institutions using AI and to potentially arrive at a consensus concerning safe and desirable uses of AI in education, this paper performs an evaluation of the self-imposed AI ethics guidelines identifying the common principles and approaches as well as drawbacks limiting the practical and legal application of the policies.

scholarly journals Artificial intelligence ethics guidelines for developers and users: clarifying their content and normative implications

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Ryan ◽  
Bernd Carsten Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Practical Action ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Degree Of Convergence ◽  
Normative Implications

Purpose The purpose of this paper is clearly illustrate this convergence and the prescriptive recommendations that such documents entail. There is a significant amount of research into the ethical consequences of artificial intelligence (AI). This is reflected by many outputs across academia, policy and the media. Many of these outputs aim to provide guidance to particular stakeholder groups. It has recently been shown that there is a large degree of convergence in terms of the principles upon which these guidance documents are based. Despite this convergence, it is not always clear how these principles are to be translated into practice. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the authors move beyond the high-level ethical principles that are common across the AI ethics guidance literature and provide a description of the normative content that is covered by these principles. The outcome is a comprehensive compilation of normative requirements arising from existing guidance documents. This is not only required for a deeper theoretical understanding of AI ethics discussions but also for the creation of practical and implementable guidance for developers and users of AI. Findings In this paper, the authors therefore provide a detailed explanation of the normative implications of existing AI ethics guidelines but directed towards developers and organisational users of AI. The authors believe that the paper provides the most comprehensive account of ethical requirements in AI currently available, which is of interest not only to the research and policy communities engaged in the topic but also to the user communities that require guidance when developing or deploying AI systems. Originality/value The authors believe that they have managed to compile the most comprehensive document collecting existing guidance which can guide practical action but will hopefully also support the consolidation of the guidelines landscape. The authors’ findings should also be of academic interest and inspire philosophical research on the consistency and justification of the various normative statements that can be found in the literature.

scholarly journals Actionable Principles for Artificial Intelligence Policy: Three Pathways

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Stix
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Governmental Policy ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
High Level

AbstractIn the development of governmental policy for artificial intelligence (AI) that is informed by ethics, one avenue currently pursued is that of drawing on “AI Ethics Principles”. However, these AI Ethics Principles often fail to be actioned in governmental policy. This paper proposes a novel framework for the development of ‘Actionable Principles for AI’. The approach acknowledges the relevance of AI Ethics Principles and homes in on methodological elements to increase their practical implementability in policy processes. As a case study, elements are extracted from the development process of the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI of the European Commission’s “High Level Expert Group on AI”. Subsequently, these elements are expanded on and evaluated in light of their ability to contribute to a prototype framework for the development of 'Actionable Principles for AI'. The paper proposes the following three propositions for the formation of such a prototype framework: (1) preliminary landscape assessments; (2) multi-stakeholder participation and cross-sectoral feedback; and, (3) mechanisms to support implementation and operationalizability.

scholarly journals In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 2749-2767
Author(s):  
Mark Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Interpersonal Trust ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Human Relationships ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
High Level ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract One of the main difficulties in assessing artificial intelligence (AI) is the tendency for people to anthropomorphise it. This becomes particularly problematic when we attach human moral activities to AI. For example, the European Commission’s High-level Expert Group on AI (HLEG) have adopted the position that we should establish a relationship of trust with AI and should cultivate trustworthy AI (HLEG AI Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, 2019, p. 35). Trust is one of the most important and defining activities in human relationships, so proposing that AI should be trusted, is a very serious claim. This paper will show that AI cannot be something that has the capacity to be trusted according to the most prevalent definitions of trust because it does not possess emotive states or can be held responsible for their actions—requirements of the affective and normative accounts of trust. While AI meets all of the requirements of the rational account of trust, it will be shown that this is not actually a type of trust at all, but is instead, a form of reliance. Ultimately, even complex machines such as AI should not be viewed as trustworthy as this undermines the value of interpersonal trust, anthropomorphises AI, and diverts responsibility from those developing and using them.

scholarly journals Value Pluralism in the AI Ethics Debate – Different Actors, Different Priorities

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catharina Rudschies ◽  
Ingrid Schneider ◽  
Judith Simon
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Value Pluralism ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
Shed Light

In the current debate on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) much attention has been paid to find some “common ground” in the numerous AI ethics guidelines. The divergences, however, are equally important as they shed light on the conflicts and controversies that require further debate. This paper analyses the AI ethics landscape with a focus on divergences across actor types (public, expert, and private actors). It finds that the differences in actors’ priorities for ethical principles influence the overall outcome of the debate. It shows that determining “minimum requirements” or “primary principles” on the basis of frequency excludes many principles that are subject to controversy, but might still be ethically relevant. The results are discussed in the light of value pluralism, suggesting that the plurality of sets of principles must be acknowledged and can be used to further the debate.

scholarly journals The social and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence in agriculture: mapping the agricultural AI literature

AI & Society ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Conference Proceedings ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Agricultural Sector ◽  
Food Sector ◽  
The Social ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Agricultural Literature ◽  
Ethics Guidelines

AbstractThis paper will examine the social and ethical impacts of using artificial intelligence (AI) in the agricultural sector. It will identify what are some of the most prevalent challenges and impacts identified in the literature, how this correlates with those discussed in the domain of AI ethics, and are being implemented into AI ethics guidelines. This will be achieved by examining published articles and conference proceedings that focus on societal or ethical impacts of AI in the agri-food sector, through a thematic analysis of the literature. The thematic analysis will be divided based on the classifications outlined through 11 overarching principles, from an established lexicon (transparency, justice and fairness, non-maleficence, responsibility, privacy, beneficence, freedom and autonomy, trust, dignity, sustainability, and solidarity). While research on AI agriculture is still relatively new, this paper aims to map the debate and illustrate what the literature says in the context of social and ethical impacts. It aim is to analyse these impacts, based on these 11 principles. This research will contrast which impacts are not being discussed in agricultural AI and which issues are not being discussed in AI ethics guidelines, but which are discussed in relation to agricultural AI. The aim of this is to identify gaps within the agricultural literature, and gaps in AI ethics guidelines, that may need to be addressed.

scholarly journals The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thilo Hagendorff
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Research Development ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Ethics Guidelines

Abstract Current advances in research, development and application of artificial intelligence (AI) systems have yielded a far-reaching discourse on AI ethics. In consequence, a number of ethics guidelines have been released in recent years. These guidelines comprise normative principles and recommendations aimed to harness the “disruptive” potentials of new AI technologies. Designed as a semi-systematic evaluation, this paper analyzes and compares 22 guidelines, highlighting overlaps but also omissions. As a result, I give a detailed overview of the field of AI ethics. Finally, I also examine to what extent the respective ethical principles and values are implemented in the practice of research, development and application of AI systems—and how the effectiveness in the demands of AI ethics can be improved.

scholarly journals Onward for the freedom of others: Marching beyond the AI Ethics

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petros Terzis
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Simone De Beauvoir ◽  
Philosophical Work ◽  
Large Community ◽  
Moral Machines ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
Ethics Guidelines

The debate on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence brought together different stakeholders including but not limited to academics, policymakers, CEOs, activists, workers’ representatives, lobbyists, journalists, and ‘moral machines’. Prominent political institutions crafted principles for the ‘ethical being’ of the AI companies while tech giants were documenting ethics in a series of self-written guidelines. In parallel, a large community started to flourish, focusing on how to technically embed ethical parameters into algorithmic systems. Founded upon the philosophical work of Simone de Beauvoir and JeanPaul Sartre, this paper explores the philosophical antinomies of the ‘AI Ethics’ debate as well as the conceptual disorientation of the ‘fairness discussion’. By bringing the philosophy of existentialism to the dialogue, this paper attempts to challenge the dialectical monopoly of utilitarianism and sheds fresh light on the -already glaring- AI arena. Why is ‘the AI Ethics guidelines’ a futile battle doomed to dangerous abstraction? How this battle can harm our sense of collective freedom? Which is the uncomfortable reality that remains obscured by the smokegas of the ‘AI Ethics’ discussion? And eventually, what’s the alternative? There seems to be a different pathway for discussing and implementing ethics; A pathway that sets the freedom of others at the epicenter of the battle for a sustainable and open to all future.

OUTDOOR CAMP EFFECTS ON ATHLETES: ORIENTEERING EXAMPLE

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (104) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kadir Yıldız ◽  
Pınar Güzel ◽  
Fırat Çetinöz ◽  
Tolga Beşikçi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Outdoor Education ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Data Collection Tool ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Interview Technique ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
Research Questions

Background. In this research, we aimed to investigate the effects of outdoor camps on orienteering athletes. Methods. The study group consisted of 74 athletes (44 males and 30 females, aged 11.94 ± 1.32 years) who participated in Bolu outdoor camp on the 3 rd –13 th of August, 2015. Interview technique, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was used as data collection tool and content analysis method was used for data analysis. Results. Demographic factors were interpreted after the analysis of the obtained data and three main research questions were discussed under the topics of the views of athletes about the concept of Orienteering which is an outdoor sport, themes and codes regarding the purpose of Orienteering by the students who participated in the outdoor camp, and themes and codes about the outcomes of Orienteering for the students who participated in outdoor camps. Conclusion. It is suggested that a policy must be developed within the Ministry of Youth and Sport and Sport Federations in order to disseminate more deliberate and more comprehensive outdoor education among young people and measures should be taken to provide extensive participation.

The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Data Driven ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Ai Ethics ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Control Complex

This book explores the intertwining domains of artificial intelligence (AI) and ethics—two highly divergent fields which at first seem to have nothing to do with one another. AI is a collection of computational methods for studying human knowledge, learning, and behavior, including by building agents able to know, learn, and behave. Ethics is a body of human knowledge—far from completely understood—that helps agents (humans today, but perhaps eventually robots and other AIs) decide how they and others should behave. Despite these differences, however, the rapid development in AI technology today has led to a growing number of ethical issues in a multitude of fields, ranging from disciplines as far-reaching as international human rights law to issues as intimate as personal identity and sexuality. In fact, the number and variety of topics in this volume illustrate the width, diversity of content, and at times exasperating vagueness of the boundaries of “AI Ethics” as a domain of inquiry. Within this discourse, the book points to the capacity of sociotechnical systems that utilize data-driven algorithms to classify, to make decisions, and to control complex systems. Given the wide-reaching and often intimate impact these AI systems have on daily human lives, this volume attempts to address the increasingly complicated relations between humanity and artificial intelligence. It considers not only how humanity must conduct themselves toward AI but also how AI must behave toward humanity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document