scholarly journals Observable and Attention-Directing BDI Agents for Human-Autonomy Teaming

2021 ◽  
Vol 348 ◽  
pp. 167-175
Author(s):  
Blair Archibald ◽  
Muffy Calder ◽  
Michele Sevegnani ◽  
Mengwei Xu
Keyword(s):  
Bdi Agents ◽  
Human Autonomy

Secondary-Cause Autonomy and Divine Motivation

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 75-92
Author(s):  
Christian Schröer
Keyword(s):  
Human Dignity ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Thomas Aquinas ◽  
Moral Autonomy ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Religious Motivation ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Theoretical View ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
The Voice

An act-theoretical view on the profile of responsibility discourse shows in what sense not only all kinds of technical, pragmatic and moral reason, but also all kinds of religious motivation cannot justify a human action sufficiently without acknowledgment to three basic principles of human autonomy as supreme limiting conditions that are human dignity, sense, and justifiability. According to Thomas Aquinas human beings ultimately owe their moral autonomy to a divine creator. So this autonomy can be considered as an expression of secondary-cause autonomy and as the voice of God in the enlightened conscience.

Trust and Team Performance in Human–Autonomy Teaming

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Nathan J. McNeese ◽  
Mustafa Demir ◽  
Erin K. Chiou ◽  
Nancy J. Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Human Autonomy

Evaluation of Playbook Delegation Approach in Human-Autonomy Teaming for Single Pilot Operations

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Güliz Tokadlı ◽  
Michael C. Dorneich ◽  
Michael Matessa
Keyword(s):  
Human Autonomy

Behavioral flexibility in Belief-Desire- Intention (BDI) architectures

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-377
Author(s):  
Adel Saadi ◽  
Ramdane Maamri ◽  
Zaidi Sahnoun
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Practical Reasoning ◽  
Behavioral Flexibility ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Simple Experiment ◽  
Bdi Agents ◽  
Popular Approach ◽  
Other Hand

The Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) model is a popular approach to design flexible agents. The key ingredient of BDI model, that contributed to concretize behavioral flexibility, is the inclusion of the practical reasoning. On the other hand, researchers signaled some missing flexibility’s ingredient, in BDI model, essentially the lack of learning. Therefore, an extensive research was conducted in order to extend BDI agents with learning. Although this latter body of research is important, the key contribution of BDI model, i.e., practical reasoning, did not receive a sufficient attention. For instance, for performance reasons, some of the concepts included in the BDI model are neglected by BDI architectures. Neglecting these concepts was criticized by some researchers, as the ability of the agent to reason will be limited, which eventually leads to a more or less flexible reasoning, depending on the concepts explicitly included. The current paper aims to stimulate the researchers to re-explore the concretization of practical reasoning in BDI architectures. Concretely, this paper aims to stimulate a critical review of BDI architectures regarding the flexibility, inherent from the practical reasoning, in the context of single agents, situated in an environment which is not associated with uncertainty. Based on this review, we sketch a new orientation and some suggested improvements for the design of BDI agents. Finally, a simple experiment on a specific case study is carried out to evaluate some suggested improvements, namely the contribution of the agent’s “well-informedness” in the enhancement of the behavioral flexibility.

scholarly journals Human autonomy, technological automation (and reverse)

AI & Society ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simona Chiodo
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous Vehicles ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Moral Decision ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
The One

AbstractWe continuously talk about autonomous technologies. But how can words qualifying technologies be the very same words chosen by Kant to define what is essentially human, i.e. being autonomous? The article focuses on a possible answer by reflecting upon both etymological and philosophical issues, as well as upon the case of autonomous vehicles. Most interestingly, on the one hand, we have the notion of (human) “autonomy”, meaning that there is a “law” that is “self-given”, and, on the other hand, we have the notion of (technological) “automation”, meaning that there is something “offhand” that is “self-given”. Yet, we are experiencing a kind of twofold shift: on the one hand, the shift from defining technologies in terms of automation to defining technologies in terms of autonomy and, on the other hand, the shift from defining humans in terms of autonomy to defining humans in terms of automation. From a philosophical perspective, the shift may mean that we are trying to escape precisely from what autonomy founds, i.e. individual responsibility of humans that, in the Western culture, have been defined for millennia as rational and moral decision-makers, even when their decisions have been the toughest. More precisely, the shift may mean that we are using technologies, and in particular emerging algorithmic technologies, as scapegoats that bear responsibility for us by making decisions for us. Moreover, if we consider the kind of emerging algorithmic technologies that increasingly surround us, starting from autonomous vehicles, then we may argue that we also seem to create a kind of technological divine that, by being always with us through its immanent omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence and inscrutability, can always be our technological scapegoat freeing us from the most unbearable burden of individual responsibility resulting from individual autonomy.

THE DĒMOS IN DĒMOKRATIA

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Cammack
Keyword(s):  
Political Society ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
The People ◽  
Leaders And Followers ◽  
Governing Principle ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
Self Rule ◽  
City State ◽  
The Right ◽  
Individual Human

The meaning of dēmokratia is widely agreed: ‘rule by the people’ (less often ‘people-power’), where dēmos, ‘people’, implies ‘entire citizen body’, synonymous with polis, ‘city-state’, or πάντες πολίται, ‘all citizens’. Dēmos, on this understanding, comprised rich and poor, leaders and followers, mass and elite alike. As such, dēmokratia is interpreted as constituting a sharp rupture from previous political regimes. Rule by one man or by a few had meant the domination of one part of the community over the rest, but dēmokratia, it is said, implied self-rule, and with it the dissolution of the very distinction between ruler and ruled. Its governing principle was the formal political equality of all citizens. In the words of W.G. Forrest, between 750 and 450 b.c. there had developed ‘the idea of individual human autonomy … the idea that all members of a political society are free and equal, that everyone had the right to an equal say in determining the structure and the activities of his society’.

scholarly journals Examining Human-Autonomy Team Interaction and Explicable Behavior in a Dynamic LEGO Construction Task

2020 ◽  
Vol 168 ◽  
pp. 195-201
Author(s):  
Mustafa Demir ◽  
Polemnia G. Amazeen ◽  
Nancy J. Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Team Interaction ◽  
Human Autonomy ◽  
Construction Task

Systems Level Evaluation of Resilience in Human-Autonomy Teaming under Degraded Conditions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Grimm ◽  
Mustafa Demir ◽  
Jamie C. Gorman ◽  
Nancy J. Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Human Autonomy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document