Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has drawn attention to the technology’s transformative potential, including what some see as its prospects for causing large-scale harm. We review two influential arguments purporting to show how AI could pose catastrophic risks. The first argument — the Problem of Power-Seeking — claims that, under certain assumptions, advanced AI systems are likely to engage in dangerous power-seeking behavior in pursuit of their goals. We review reasons for thinking that AI systems might seek (...) power, that they might obtain it, that this could lead to catastrophe, and that we might build and deploy such systems anyway. The second argument claims that the development of human-level AI will unlock rapid further progress, culminating in AI systems far more capable than any human — this is the Singularity Hypothesis. Power-seeking behavior on the part of such systems might be particularly dangerous. We discuss a variety of objections to both arguments and conclude by assessing the state of the debate. (shrink)

Presupposing no familiarity with the technical concepts of either philosophy or computing, this clear introduction reviews the progress made in AI since the inception of the field in 1956. Copeland goes on to analyze what those working in AI must achieve before they can claim to have built a thinking machine and appraises their prospects of succeeding. There are clear introductions to connectionism and to the language of thought hypothesis which weave together material from philosophy, artificial intelligence and (...) neuroscience. John Searle's attacks on AI and cognitive science are countered and close attention is given to foundational issues, including the nature of computation, Turing Machines, the Church-Turing Thesis and the difference between classical symbol processing and parallel distributed processing. The book also explores the possibility of machines having free will and consciousness and concludes with a discussion of in what sense the human brain may be a computer. (shrink)

본 논문의 목적은 현재의 인공지능(artificial intelligence, 이하 AI) 윤리 논의에서 결여되어 있는 AI 개발자 윤리의 중요성과 필요성을 부각하고, AI 개발자 윤리로 덕성(virtue)기반의 모델이 적합함을 보여 이를 제안하는 것이다. AI는 고정된 과학기술이 아니라 발전노정에 있는 동적이라는 특성과 인간과의 상호작용에서 AI를 만든 인간의 삶에 지대한 영향을 끼치는 재귀적 특성이 있는 과학기술이다. 이러한 AI의 특성으로 인해, AI가 초래할 리스크에 대응하려는 AI 윤리는 발전 과정에 따라 제시되어야 한다는 점에서 체계적이고, 실천을 도모하는 동기부여의 구조를 가져야 한다는 점에서 기존 도덕의 형식적 특징인 1인칭, 2인칭, (...) 3인칭 관점이 통합될 필요가 있다. 그런데 최근에 활발하게 제시된 많은 AI윤리 지침에 대한 메타 분석에 따르면, 현재의 지침으로서의 AI 윤리 논의들은 1인칭 관점의 동기부여가 없는 3인칭 관점에만 한정되어 실질적인 ‘윤리 실현’(ethics realizing)을 도모하기에 취약하다. AI 윤리 지침 자체가 추상적이고 모호할 뿐만 아니라, AI를 개발하는 사람들에게 아무런 영향력을 행사하지 못하는 ‘윤리 세탁’(ethics washing)에 불과하기 때문이다. 이러한 한계를 보완하기 위해서는 AI 개발자들이 AI 윤리를 내면화하여 규범적으로 실천하게 할 수 있게 하는 AI 개발자 윤리가 필요한데, 본 논문은 덕성 기반의 AI 개발자 윤리가 이러한 목적을 위해 효과적이라고 주장한다. 덕성 기반의 AI 개발자 모델은, 과학적 덕성 모델(scientific virtue model)이 그랬던 것처럼 AI 개발의 목적이 무엇인지, AI개발자들의 전문직 덕성(vocational virtue)이 무엇인지, 그리고 이러한 덕성을 함양하기 위한 효과적인 교육 방법은 무엇인지 등의 이론 연구와 AI 개발자들과의 소통을 토대로 하는 경험 연구의 결합을 통해 실천적 차원의 모델로 구체화될 수 있다. 본 논문에서 이론적으로 제안하는 덕성 기반의 AI 개발자 윤리가 추후 한국 사회의 경험 연구를 통해 실천적 차원의 모델로 구체화되어 AI가 초래하는 윤리적 문제들에 효과적으로 대응하면서 AI의 혜택이 풍성히 향유되는데 기여하기를 기대한다. (shrink)

This paper investigates the claim that artificial Intelligence Systems cannot be held morally responsible because they do not have an ability for agential self-awareness e.g. they cannot be aware that they are the agents of an action. The main suggestion is that if agential self-awareness and related first person representations presuppose an awareness of a self, the possibility of responsible artificial intelligence systems cannot be evaluated independently of research conducted on the nature of the self. Focusing (...) on a specific account of the self from the phenomenological tradition, this paper suggests that a minimal necessary condition that artificial intelligence systems must satisfy so that they have a capability for self-awareness, is having a minimal self defined as ‘a sense of ownership’. As this sense of ownership is usually associated with having a living body, one suggestion is that artificial intelligence systems must have similar living bodies so they can have a sense of self. Discussing cases of robotic animals as examples of the possibility of artificial intelligence systems having a sense of self, the paper concludes that the possibility of artificial intelligence systems having a ‘sense of ownership’ or a sense of self may be a necessary condition for having responsibility. (shrink)

Presupposing no familiarity with the technical concepts of either philosophy or computing, this clear introduction reviews the progress made in AI since the inception of the field in 1956. Copeland goes on to analyze what those working in AI must achieve before they can claim to have built a thinking machine and appraises their prospects of succeeding.There are clear introductions to connectionism and to the language of thought hypothesis which weave together material from philosophy, artificial intelligence and neuroscience. (...) John Searle's attacks on AI and cognitive science are countered and close attention is given to foundational issues, including the nature of computation, Turing Machines, the Church-Turing Thesis and the difference between classical symbol processing and parallel distributed processing. The book also explores the possibility of machines having free will and consciousness and concludes with a discussion of in what sense the human brain may be a computer. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly expected to disrupt the ordinary functioning of society. From how we fight wars or govern society, to how we work and play, and from how we create to how we teach and learn, there is almost no field of human activity which is believed to be entirely immune from the impact of this emerging technology. This poses a multifaceted problem when it comes to designing and understanding regulatory responses to AI. This article aims (...) to: (i) defend the need for a novel conceptual model for understanding the systemic legal disruption caused by new technologies such as AI; (ii) to situate this model in relation to preceding debates about the interaction of regulation with new technologies (particularly the ‘cyberlaw’ and ‘robolaw’ debates); and (iii) to set out a detailed model for understanding the legal disruption precipitated by AI, examining both pathways stemming from new affordances that can give rise to a regulatory ‘disruptive moment’, as well as the Legal Development, Displacement or Destruction that can ensue. The article proposes that this model of legal disruption can be broadly generalisable to understanding the legal effects and challenges of other emerging technologies. (shrink)

‘도덕 행위자(moral agent)’의 개념은 전통적으로 자신의 행동에 대해 책임을 질 수 있는 자유의지를 가진 인격적 존재에 한정되어 적용되었다. 그런데 도덕적 함축을 갖는 다양한 행동을 수행할 수 있는 자율적 AI의 등장은 이러한 행위자 개념의 수정을 요구하는 것처럼 보인다. 필자는 이 논문에서 일정한 요건을 만족시키는 AI에 대해서 인격성을 전제하지 않는 기능적인 의미의 도덕 행위자 자격이 부여될 수 있다고 주장한다. 그리고 그런 한에 있어서, AI에게도 그 행위자성에 걸맞은 책임 혹은 책무성의 귀속이 가능해진다. 이러한 주장을 뒷받침하기 위하여, 본 논문은 예상되는 여러 가능한 반론들을 살펴보고 (...) 거기에 응답함으로써, AI를 자율적 행위자로 여길 수 있는 여러 근거들을 제시하는 동시에, AI에게 귀속 가능한 책임 혹은 책무성의 개념을 발전시키고자 시도한다. (shrink)

1. WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE? One of the fascinating aspects of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is that the precise nature of its subject ..

Conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) presents many opportunities in the psychotherapeutic landscape—such as therapeutic support for people with mental health problems and without access to care. The adoption of CAI poses many risks that need in-depth ethical scrutiny. The objective of this paper is to complement current research on the ethics of AI for mental health by proposing a holistic, ethical, and epistemic analysis of CAI adoption. First, we focus on the question of whether CAI is rather a tool (...) or an agent. This question serves as a framework for the subsequent ethical analysis of CAI focusing on topics of (self-) knowledge, (self-)understanding, and relationships. Second, we propose further conceptual and ethical analysis regarding human-AI interaction and argue that CAI cannot be considered as an equal partner in a conversation as is the case with a human therapist. Instead, CAI’s role in a conversation should be restricted to specific functions. (shrink)

The enduring innovations in artificial intelligence and robotics offer the promised capacity of computer consciousness, sentience and rationality. The development of these advanced technologies have been considered to merit rights, however these can only be ascribed in the context of commensurate responsibilities and duties. This represents the discernable next-step for evolution in this field. Addressing these needs requires attention to the philosophical perspectives of moral responsibility for artificial intelligence and robotics. A contrast to the moral status (...) of animals may be considered. At a practical level, the attainment of responsibilities by artificial intelligence and robots can benefit from the established responsibilities and duties of human society, as their subsistence exists within this domain. These responsibilities can be further interpreted and crystalized through legal principles, many of which have been conserved from ancient Roman law. The ultimate and unified goal of stipulating these responsibilities resides through the advancement of mankind and the enduring preservation of the core tenets of humanity. (shrink)

Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) for cybersecurity tasks are attracting greater attention from the private and the public sectors. Estimates indicate that the market for AI in cybersecurity will grow from US$1 billion in 2016 to a US$34.8 billion net worth by 2025. The latest national cybersecurity and defence strategies of several governments explicitly mention AI capabilities. At the same time, initiatives to define new standards and certification procedures to elicit users’ trust in AI are emerging on a (...) global scale. However, trust in AI (both machine learning and neural networks) to deliver cybersecurity tasks is a double edged sword: it can improve substantially cybersecurity practices, but can also facilitate new forms of attacks to the AI applications themselves, which may pose severe security threats. We argue that trust in AI for cybersecurity is unwarranted and that, to reduce security risks, some form of control to ensure the deployment of ‘reliable AI’ for cybersecurity is necessary. To this end, we offer three recommendations focusing on the design, development and deployment of AI for cybersecurity. (shrink)

In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence. In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a ‘good AI society’. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: the development of (...) a ‘good AI society’; the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community in pursuing such a development; and where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a ‘good AI society’. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach. (shrink)

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence for making decisions in public affairs has sparked a lively debate on the benefits and potential harms of self-learning technologies, ranging from the hopes of fully informed and objectively taken decisions to fear for the destruction of mankind. To prevent the negative outcomes and to achieve accountable systems, many have argued that we need to open up the “black box” of AI decision-making and make it more transparent. Whereas this debate has primarily (...) focused on how transparency can secure high-quality, fair, and reliable decisions, far less attention has been devoted to the role of transparency when it comes to how the general public come to perceive AI decision-making as legitimate and worthy of acceptance. Since relying on coercion is not only normatively problematic but also costly and highly inefficient, perceived legitimacy is fundamental to the democratic system. This paper discusses how transparency in and about AI decision-making can affect the public’s perception of the legitimacy of decisions and decision-makers and produce a framework for analyzing these questions. We argue that a limited form of transparency that focuses on providing justifications for decisions has the potential to provide sufficient ground for perceived legitimacy without producing the harms full transparency would bring. (shrink)

Advanced AI systems are rapidly making their way into medical research and practice, and, arguably, it is only a matter of time before they will surpass human practitioners in terms of accuracy, reliability, and knowledge. If this is true, practitioners will have a prima facie epistemic and professional obligation to align their medical verdicts with those of advanced AI systems. However, in light of their complexity, these AI systems will often function as black boxes: the details of their contents, calculations, (...) and procedures cannot be meaningfully understood by human practitioners. When AI systems reach this level of complexity, we can also speak of black-box medicine. In this paper, we want to argue that black-box medicine conflicts with core ideals of patient-centered medicine. In particular, we claim, black-box medicine is not conducive for supporting informed decision-making based on shared information, shared deliberation, and shared mind between practitioner and patient. (shrink)

This paper discusses the problem of responsibility attribution raised by the use of artificial intelligence technologies. It is assumed that only humans can be responsible agents; yet this alone already raises many issues, which are discussed starting from two Aristotelian conditions for responsibility. Next to the well-known problem of many hands, the issue of “many things” is identified and the temporal dimension is emphasized when it comes to the control condition. Special attention is given to the epistemic condition, (...) which draws attention to the issues of transparency and explainability. In contrast to standard discussions, however, it is then argued that this knowledge problem regarding agents of responsibility is linked to the other side of the responsibility relation: the addressees or “patients” of responsibility, who may demand reasons for actions and decisions made by using AI. Inspired by a relational approach, responsibility as answerability thus offers an important additional, if not primary, justification for explainability based, not on agency, but on patiency. (shrink)

It has become a truism that the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) is necessary and must help guide technological developments. Numerous ethical guidelines have emerged from academia, industry, government and civil society in recent years. While they provide a basis for discussion on appropriate regulation of AI, it is not always clear how these ethical guidelines were developed, and by whom. Using content analysis, we surveyed a sample of the major documents (_n_ = 47) and analyzed the accessible (...) information regarding their methodology and stakeholder engagement. Surprisingly, only 38% report some form of stakeholder engagement (with 9% involving citizens) and most do not report their methodology for developing normative insights (15%). Our results show that documents with stakeholder engagement develop more comprehensive ethical guidance with greater applicability, and that the private sector is least likely to engage stakeholders. We argue that the current trend for enunciating AI ethical guidance not only poses widely discussed challenges of applicability in practice, but also of transparent development (as it rather behaves as a black box) and of active engagement of diversified, independent and trustworthy stakeholders. While most of these documents consider people and the common good as central to their telos, engagement with the general public is significantly lacking. As AI ethics moves from the initial race for enunciating general principles to more sustainable, inclusive and practical guidance, stakeholder engagement and citizen involvement will need to be embedded into the framing of ethical and societal expectations towards this technology. (shrink)

The idea that human thinking and machine computing are "radically the same" provides the central theme for this marvelously lucid and witty book on...

Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument holds that language requires rule-following, rule following requires the possibility of error, error is precluded in pure introspection, and inner mental life is known only by pure introspection, thus language cannot exist entirely within inner mental life. Fodor defends his Language of Thought program against the Private Language Argument with a dilemma: either privacy is so narrow that internal mental life can be known outside of introspection, or so broad that computer language serves as a counter-example. (...) I suggest that the developing field of artificial intelligence (deep learning neural networks) tends to vitiate Fodor’s defense and hence vindicate the Private Language Argument. The first horn of Fodor’s dilemma requires language to encompass genuinely internal mental life, i.e. non-projected intentional states, which are not exhibited in classical machine learning but only by deep learning neural networks (artificial intelligence). Such networks act as black boxes, however, whose state cannot be understood by tracking the changes in their supervenience bases without shared context, and that shared context introduces the possibility of error. The language of artificial intelligence is not private. (shrink)

Artificial Neural Networks have reached “grandmaster” and even “super-human” performance across a variety of games, from those involving perfect information, such as Go, to those involving imperfect information, such as “Starcraft”. Such technological developments from artificial intelligence (AI) labs have ushered concomitant applications across the world of business, where an “AI” brand-tag is quickly becoming ubiquitous. A corollary of such widespread commercial deployment is that when AI gets things wrong—an autonomous vehicle crashes, a chatbot exhibits “racist” behavior, (...) automated credit-scoring processes “discriminate” on gender, etc.—there are often significant financial, legal, and brand consequences, and the incident becomes major news. As Judea Pearl sees it, the underlying reason for such mistakes is that “... all the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just curve fitting.” The key, as Pearl suggests, is to replace “reasoning by association” with “causal reasoning” —the ability to infer causes from observed phenomena. It is a point that was echoed by Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis in a recent piece for theNew York Times: “we need to stop building computer systems that merely get better and better at detecting statistical patterns in data sets—often using an approach known as ‘Deep Learning’—and start building computer systems that from the moment of their assembly innately grasp three basic concepts: time, space, and causality.” In this paper, foregrounding what in 1949 Gilbert Ryle termed “a category mistake”, I will offer an alternative explanation for AI errors; it is not so much that AI machinery cannot “grasp” causality, but that AI machinery (qua computation) cannot understand anything at all. (shrink)

인공지능에 인격의 지위를 부여할 수 있는지에 대한 찬반 논쟁에서, 인격에 대한 칸트의 관점이 종종 인용된다. 인공지능에 인격을 부여할 수 있는지에 대한 찬성 입장과 반대 입장 사이에 여러 상이한 주장들이 발견되는 한편, 양측은 종종 인격에 대한 칸트의 관점에 따르면 인공지능에는 인격이 부여될 수 없다는 해석을 공통적으로 받아들인다. 인공지능에 인격의 지위를 부여하는 것에 반대하는 입장에서는 칸트 철학에 대한 그러한 해석을 인공지능 일반에 인격의 지위를 부여해서는 안 된다는 주장을 뒷받침하는 철학적 논거 중 하나로 활용하는 반면, 인공지능에 인격의 지위를 부여하는 것에 찬성하는 입장에서는 칸트 (...) 철학에 대한 그러한 해석을 극복해야 할 인간 중심주의적 편견을 보여주는 한 사례로 활용한다. 본 논문은 찬반 양측이 종종 공유하는 해당 해석의 한계를 지적하고, 인격에 대한 칸트의 관점이 인공지능에 인격을 부여할 수 있는지의 문제에 어떠한 시사점을 줄 수 있는지에 대해 논의한다. 해당 해석은 특정 분야의 문제 해결을 위해서만 활용될 수 있는 약 인공지능에 적용되는 경우 어느 정도 설득력이 있으나, 이성적 사유와 도덕적 행위를 수행할 수 있을 것으로 상상되는 강 인공지능까지 논의의 범위에 포함되는 경우 문제적이다. 해당 해석은 칸트가 인격을 이성적 사유와 도덕적 행위의 가능성을 뒷받침하는 표상으로 제시할 뿐, 인격의 표상이 적용될 수 있는 실제 존재자의 범위에 대한 객관적 지식을 주장하지 않는다는 점을 종종 간과한다. 칸트는 인격에 대한 객관적 지식이 성립될 수 없다고 주장하므로, 인격에 대한 칸트의 관점은 인격적 존재자를 인간종의 범위 안으로 국한시키는 인간 중심주의와는 거리가 멀며, 이성적 사유와 도덕적 행위를 수행할 수 있을 것으로 상상되는 강인공지능의 출현 가능성을 부정할 논거로 활용되기 어렵다. (shrink)

The world’s current model for economic development is unsustainable. It encourages high levels of resource extraction, consumption, and waste that undermine positive environmental outcomes. Transitioning to a circular economy (CE) model of development has been proposed as a sustainable alternative. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a crucial enabler for CE. It can aid in designing robust and sustainable products, facilitate new circular business models, and support the broader infrastructures needed to scale circularity. However, to date, considerations of the ethical (...) implications of using AI to achieve a transition to CE have been limited. This article addresses this gap. It outlines how AI is and can be used to transition towards CE, analyzes the ethical risks associated with using AI for this purpose, and supports some recommendations to policymakers and industry on how to minimise these risks. (shrink)

Since around 2012, there has been a ‘deep learning revolution’ in artificial intelligence (AI) that has brought AI to the forefront of many sectors of human activity. As new AI technology has sprea...

인공 감정에 관한 철학적 탐구가 필요한 시점이다. 인간의 고유한 영역으로 간주되던 인지적 과제에서 기계의 추월을 염려하는 처지가 되자, 사람들은 이제 이성이 아니라 감정에서 인간의 고유성을 찾으려한다. 하지만 최근 인공지능 로봇에 감성을 불어넣는 작업이 새로운 화두로 떠오르고 있다. 이 글은 인공 감정의 실현가능성과 잠재적인 위험을 논의한다. 먼저, 감성 로봇의 개발 현황과 주요한 동기들을 개괄하고, 왜 로봇의 감정이 문제가 되는지 살펴본다. 진정한 감정-소유 로봇이 가능한지 검토하기 위해 감정을 선험적으로 정의하기보다는 감정이 수행하는 몇 가지 핵심 역할을 소개하고 이로부터 어떤 대상에 감정을 부여할 수 (...) 있는 기준들을 제안한다. 나는 이런 기준에 비추어 진정한 감정 로봇이 근미래에 실현될 가능성이 낮다고 주장한다. 그러나 감정-소유 로봇이 등장하기 이전이라도, 어느 정도의 자율성을 가진 로봇과 맺는 일방적 감정 소통은 잠재적으로 위험할 수 있으며, 이에 대비하는 것이 시급하다고 주장한다. (shrink)

In March 2016, DeepMind's computer programme AlphaGo surprised the world by defeating the world‐champion Go player, Lee Sedol. AlphaGo exhibits a novel, surprising and valuable style of play and has been recognised as “creative” by the artificial intelligence (AI) and Go communities. This article examines whether AlphaGo engages in creative problem solving according to the standards of comparative psychology. I argue that AlphaGo displays one important aspect of creative problem solving (namely mental scenario building in the form of (...) Monte Carlo tree search), while lacking another (domain generality). This analysis has consequences for how we think about creativity in humans and AI. (shrink)

In this book, the author examines the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence systems as they integrate and replace traditional social structures in new sociocognitive-technological environments. She discusses issues related to the integrity of researchers, technologists, and manufacturers as they design, construct, use, and manage artificially intelligent systems; formalisms for reasoning about moral decisions as part of the behavior of artificial autonomous systems such as agents and robots; and design methodologies for social agents based on societal, moral, and (...) legal values. Throughout the book the author discusses related work, conscious of both classical, philosophical treatments of ethical issues and the implications in modern, algorithmic systems, and she combines regular references and footnotes with suggestions for further reading. This short overview is suitable for undergraduate students, in both technical and non-technical courses, and for interested and concerned researchers, practitioners, and citizens. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) national strategies provide countries with a framework for the development and implementation of AI technologies. Sixty countries worldwide published their AI national strategies. The majority of these countries with more than 70% are developed countries. The approach of AI national strategies differentiates between developed and developing countries in several aspects including scientific research, education, talent development, and ethics. This paper examined AI readiness assessment in a developing country (Palestine) to help develop and identify the main (...) pillars of the AI national strategy. AI readiness assessment was applied across education, entrepreneurship, government, and research and development sectors in Palestine (case of a developing country). In addition, it examined the legal framework and whether it is coping with trending technologies. The results revealed that Palestinians have low awareness of AI. Moreover, AI is barely used across several sectors and the legal framework is not coping with trending technologies. The results helped develop and identify the following five main pillars that Palestine’s AI national strategy should focus on: AI for Government, AI for Development, AI for Capacity Building in the private, public and technical and governmental sectors, AI and Legal Framework, and international Activities. (shrink)

Artificial Intelligence and Scientific Method examines the remarkable advances made in the field of AI over the past twenty years, discussing their profound implications for philosophy. Taking a clear, non-technical approach, Donald Gillies shows how current views on scientific method are challenged by this recent research, and suggests a new framework for the study of logic. Finally, he draws on work by such seminal thinkers as Bacon, Gdel, Popper, Penrose, and Lucas, to address the hotly-contested question of whether (...) computers might become intellectually superior to human beings. (shrink)

This paper argues that the Value Sensitive Design (VSD) methodology provides a principled approach to embedding common values in to AI systems both early and throughout the design process. To do so, it draws on an important case study: the evidence and final report of the UK Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. This empirical investigation shows that the different and often disparate stakeholder groups that are implicated in AI design and use share some common values that can be (...) used to further strengthen design coordination efforts. VSD is shown to be both able to distill these common values as well as provide a framework for stakeholder coordination. (shrink)

This paper looks at philosophical questions that arise in the context of AI alignment. It defends three propositions. First, normative and technical aspects of the AI alignment problem are interrelated, creating space for productive engagement between people working in both domains. Second, it is important to be clear about the goal of alignment. There are significant differences between AI that aligns with instructions, intentions, revealed preferences, ideal preferences, interests and values. A principle-based approach to AI alignment, which combines these elements (...) in a systematic way, has considerable advantages in this context. Third, the central challenge for theorists is not to identify ‘true’ moral principles for AI; rather, it is to identify fair principles for alignment that receive reflective endorsement despite widespread variation in people’s moral beliefs. The final part of the paper explores three ways in which fair principles for AI alignment could potentially be identified. (shrink)

인공지능이 자율성을 가진 존재일 수 있는가? 자율성은 책임과 권리같은 관념의 선결 조건으로 오늘의 사회에서 ‘인공지능이 해내는 일’에 연관된 책임과 공헌을 배분하는 데 적용할 규범의 이론적 기반이 된다는 점에서 이 물음은 현실적으로 중요하다. 공학의 ‘자율적 에이전트’ 개념은 현행의 철학적 논의에도 영향을 미치며, 공학과 철학의 자율성 개념 간의 관계가 명료하게 인식되지 못한 까닭에 야기될 혼란의 개연성이 실재한다. 이런 현실의 문제 상황을 의식하면서, 이 논문은 앞의 물음을 가능성에 관한 물음과 정당성에 관한 물음으로 분석하고, 인공지능의 자율성에 관한 전망을 검토한다. 논의의 과정에서 ‘X가 자율성을 가진다’는 (...) 의미를 규명해야 할 필요가 확인되고, 논문은 루소와 칸트와 크리스만의 논의를 활용하여 자율성의 개념을 고찰한다. 그렇게 분석한 자율성의 개념을 인공지능의 속성에 적용해 볼 때, 칸트가 정립한 자율성 개념에 비추어 인공지능은 자율적 존재일 수 없으며, 크리스만의 서술에서 부각된 자율적 존재의 핵심 속성을 고려할 때 인공지능이나 그것으로 작동하는 로보틱 시스템이 자율성을 지니도록 하는 것은 부적절한 위험을 허용한다는 점에서 옳지 않음이 드러난다. (shrink)

The purpose of this book, originally published in 1987, was to contribute to the advance of artificial intelligence by clarifying and removing the major sources of philosophical confusion at the time which continued to preoccupy scientists and thereby impede research. Unlike the vast majority of philosophical critiques of AI, however, each of the authors in this volume has made a serious attempt to come to terms with the scientific theories that have been developed, rather than attacking superficial 'straw (...) men' which bear scant resemblance to the complex theories that have been developed. For each is convinced that the philosopher's responsibility is to contribute from his own special intellectual point of view to the progress of such an important field, rather than sitting in lofty judgement dismissing the efforts of their scientific peers. The aim of this book is thus to correct some of the common misunderstandings of its subject. The technical term Artificial Intelligence has created considerable unnecessary confusion because of the ordinary meanings associated with it, and for that very reason, the term is endlessly misused and abused. The essays collected here all aim to expound the true nature of AI, and to remove the ill-conceived philosophical discussions which seek answers to the wrong questions in the wrong ways. Philosophical discussions and decisions about the proper use of AI need to be based on a proper understanding of the manner in which AI-scientists achieve their results; in particular, in their dependence on the initial planning input of human beings. The collection combines the Anglo-Saxon school of analytical philosophy with scientific and psychological methods of investigation. The distinguished authors in this volume represent a cross-section of philosophers, psychologists, and computer scientists from all over the world. The result is a fascinating study in the nature and future of AI, written in a style which is certain to appeal and inform laymen and specialists alike. has created considerable unnecessary confusion because of the ordinary meanings associated with it, and for that very reason, the term is endlessly misused and abused. The essays collected here all aim to expound the true nature of AI, and to remove the ill-conceived philosophical discussions which seek answers to the wrong questions in the wrong ways. Philosophical discussions and decisions about the proper use of AI need to be based on a proper understanding of the manner in which AI-scientists achieve their results; in particular, in their dependence on the initial planning input of human beings. The collection combines the Anglo-Saxon school of analytical philosophy with scientific and psychological methods of investigation. The distinguished authors in this volume represent a cross-section of philosophers, psychologists, and computer scientists from all over the world. The result is a fascinating study in the nature and future of AI, written in a style which is certain to appeal and inform laymen and specialists alike. inform laymen and specialists alike. (shrink)

Increasing concerns have been raised regarding artificial intelligence (AI) bias, and in response, efforts have been made to pursue AI fairness. In this paper, we argue that the idea of structural injustice serves as a helpful framework for clarifying the ethical concerns surrounding AI bias—including the nature of its moral problem and the responsibility for addressing it—and reconceptualizing the approach to pursuing AI fairness. Using AI in healthcare as a case study, we argue that AI bias is a (...) form of structural injustice that exists when AI systems interact with other social factors to exacerbate existing social inequalities, making some groups of people more vulnerable to undeserved burdens while conferring unearned benefits to others. The goal of AI fairness, understood this way, is about pursuing a more just social structure with the development and usage of AI systems when appropriate. We further argue that all participating agents in the unjust social structure associated with AI bias bear a shared responsibility to join collective action with the goal of reforming the social structure, and we provide a list of practical recommendations for agents in various social positions to contribute to this collective action. (shrink)

A major approach to the ethics of artificial intelligence is to use social choice, in which the AI is designed to act according to the aggregate views of society. This is found in the AI ethics of “coherent extrapolated volition” and “bottom–up ethics”. This paper shows that the normative basis of AI social choice ethics is weak due to the fact that there is no one single aggregate ethical view of society. Instead, the design of social choice AI (...) faces three sets of decisions: standing, concerning whose ethics views are included; measurement, concerning how their views are identified; and aggregation, concerning how individual views are combined to a single view that will guide AI behavior. These decisions must be made up front in the initial AI design—designers cannot “let the AI figure it out”. Each set of decisions poses difficult ethical dilemmas with major consequences for AI behavior, with some decision options yielding pathological or even catastrophic results. Furthermore, non-social choice ethics face similar issues, such as whether to count future generations or the AI itself. These issues can be more important than the question of whether or not to use social choice ethics. Attention should focus on these issues, not on social choice. (shrink)

In this article we analyse the role that artificial intelligence (AI) could play, and is playing, to combat global climate change. We identify two crucial opportunities that AI offers in this domain: it can help improve and expand current understanding of climate change and it contribute to combating the climate crisis effectively. However, the development of AI also raises two sets of problems when considering climate change: the possible exacerbation of social and ethical challenges already associated with AI, (...) and the contribution to climate change of the greenhouse gases emitted by training data and computation-intensive AI systems. We assess the carbon footprint of AI research, and the factors that influence AI’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in this domain. We find that the carbon footprint of AI research may be significant and highlight the need for more evidence concerning the trade-off between the GHG emissions generated by AI research and the energy and resource efficiency gains that AI can offer. In light of our analysis, we argue that leveraging the opportunities offered by AI for global climate change whilst limiting its risks is a gambit which requires responsive, evidence-based and effective governance to become a winning strategy. We conclude by identifying the European Union as being especially well-placed to play a leading role in this policy response and provide 13 recommendations that are designed to identify and harness the opportunities of AI for combating climate change, while reducing its impact on the environment. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are becoming ever more widespread in healthcare and could play an important role in diagnostic and treatment processes. For this reason, AI‐based CDSS has an impact on the doctor–patient relationship, shaping their decisions with its suggestions. We may be on the verge of a paradigm shift, where the doctor–patient relationship is no longer a dual relationship, but a triad. This paper analyses the role of AI‐based CDSS for shared decision‐making (...) to better comprehend its promises and associated ethical issues. Moreover, it investigates how certain AI implementations may instead foster the inappropriate paradigm of paternalism. Understanding how AI relates to doctors and influences doctor–patient communication is essential to promote more ethical medical practice. Both doctors' and patients' autonomy need to be considered in the light of AI. (shrink)

This paper explores and ultimately affirms the surprising claim that artificial intelligence (AI) can become part of the person, in a robust sense, and examines three ethical and legal implications. The argument is based on a rich, legally inspired conception of persons as free and independent rightholders and objects of heightened protection, but it is construed so broadly that it should also apply to mainstream philosophical conceptions of personhood. The claim is exemplified by a specific technology, devices that (...) connect human brains with computers and operate by AI-algorithms. Under philosophically reasonable and empirically realistic conditions, these devices and the AI running them become parts of the person, in the same way as arms, hearts, or mental capacities are. This transformation shall be called empersonification. It has normative and especially legal consequences because people have broader and stronger duties regarding other persons (and parts of them) than regarding things. Three consequences with practical implications are: (i) AI-devices cease to exist as independent legal entities and come to enjoy the special legal protection of persons; (ii) therefore, third parties such as manufacturers or authors of software lose (intellectual) property rights in device and software; (iii) persons become responsible for the outputs of the empersonified AI-devices to the same degree that they are for desires or intentions arising from the depths of their unconscious. More generally, empersonification marks a new step in the long history of human–machine interaction that deserves critical ethical reflection and calls for a stronger value-aligned development of these technologies. (shrink)

As systems based on opaque Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to flourish in diverse real-world applications, understanding these black box models has become paramount. In response, Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a field of research with practical and ethical benefits across various domains. This paper not only highlights the advancements in XAI and its application in real-world scenarios but also addresses the ongoing challenges within XAI, emphasizing the need for broader perspectives and collaborative efforts. We bring together experts (...) from diverse fields to identify open problems, striving to synchronize research agendas and accelerate XAI in practical applications. By fostering collaborative discussion and interdisciplinary cooperation, we aim to propel XAI forward, contributing to its continued success. Our goal is to put forward a comprehensive proposal for advancing XAI. To achieve this goal, we present a manifesto of 27 open problems categorized into nine categories. These challenges encapsulate the complexities and nuances of XAI and offer a road map for future research. For each problem, we provide promising research directions in the hope of harnessing the collective intelligence of interested stakeholders. (shrink)

This article develops a conceptual framework for regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI) that encompasses all stages of modern public policy-making, from the basics to a sustainable governance. Based on a vast systematic review of the literature on Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AIR) published between 2010 and 2020, a dispersed body of knowledge loosely centred around the “framework” concept was organised, described, and pictured for better understanding. The resulting integrative framework encapsulates 21 prior depictions of the policy-making process, aiming (...) to achieve gold-standard societal values, such as fairness, freedom and long-term sustainability. This challenge of integrating the AIR literature was matched by the identification of a structural common ground among different approaches. The AIR framework results from an effort to identify and later analytically deduce synthetic, and generic tool for a country-specific, stakeholder-aware analysis of AIR matters. Theories and principles as diverse as Agile and Ethics were combined in the “AIR framework”, which provides a conceptual lens for societies to think collectively and make informed policy decisions related to what, when, and how the uses and applications of AI should be regulated. Moreover, the AIR framework serves as a theoretically sound starting point for endeavours related to AI regulation, from legislation to research and development. As we know, the (potential) impacts of AI on society are immense, and therefore the discourses, social negotiations, and applications of this technology should be guided by common grounds based on contemporary governance techniques, and social values legitimated via dialogue and scientific research. (shrink)

Moving from a behavioral definition of intelligence, which describes it as the ability to adapt to the surrounding environment and deal effectively with new situations (Anastasi, 1986), this paper explains to what extent the performance obtained by ChatGPT in the linguistic domain can be considered as intelligent behavior and to what extent they cannot. It also explains in what sense the hypothesis of decoupling between cognitive and problem-solving abilities, proposed by Floridi (2017) and Floridi and Chiriatti (2020) should be (...) interpreted. The problem of symbolic grounding (Harnad, 1990) is then addressed to show the problematic relationship between ChatGPT and the natural environment, and thus the impossibility for it to understand the symbols it manipulates. To explain the reasons why ChatGPT does not succeed in this task, an investigation is carried out and a possible solution to the problem in the artificial domain is proposed by making a comparison with the natural ability of living beings to ground their own meanings from some basic cognitive-sensory aspects, which, it is explained, are directly related to the emergence of self-awareness in humans. Thus, the question is raised whether a possible and concrete solution to the Symbol Grounding Problem would involve in the artificial domain the development of cognitive abilities fully comparable to those of humans. Finally, I explain the difficulties that would have to be overcome before such a level could be reached, since human cognitive capacities are intimately linked to intersubjectivity and intercorporeality. (shrink)

In this article the central philosophical issues concerning human-level artificial intelligence (AI) are presented. AI largely changed direction in the 1980s and 1990s, concentrating on building domain-specific systems and on sub-goals such as self-organization, self-repair, and reliability. Computer scientists aimed to construct intelligence amplifiers for human beings, rather than imitation humans. Turing based his test on a computer-imitates-human game, describing three versions of this game in 1948, 1950, and 1952. The famous version appears in a 1950 article (...) in Mind, ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ (Turing 1950). The interpretation of Turing's test is that it provides an operational definition of intelligence (or thinking) in machines, in terms of behavior. ‘Intelligent Machinery’ sets out the thesis that whether an entity is intelligent is determined in part by our responses to the entity's behavior. Wittgenstein frequently employed the idea of a human being acting like a reliable machine. A ‘living reading-machine’ is a human being or other creature that is given written signs, for example Chinese characters, arithmetical symbols, logical symbols, or musical notation, and who produces text spoken aloud, solutions to arithmetical problems, and proofs of logical theorems. Wittgenstein mentions that an entity that manipulates symbols genuinely reads only if he or she has a particular history, involving learning and training, and participates in a social environment that includes normative constraints and further uses of the symbols. (shrink)

The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare and epidemiology undoubtedly has many benefits for the population. However, due to its environmental impact, the use of AI can produce social inequalities and long-term environmental damages that may not be thoroughly contemplated. In this paper, we propose to consider the impacts of AI applications in medical care from the One Health paradigm and long-term global health. From health and environmental justice, rather than settling for a short and fleeting green (...) honeymoon between health and sustainability caused by AI, it should aim for a lasting marriage. To this end, we conclude by proposing that, in the upcoming years, it could be valuable and necessary to promote more interconnected health, call for environmental cost transparency, and increase green responsibility. (shrink)

This collection of Margaret Boden's essays written between 1982 and 1988 focuses on the relevance of artificial intelligence to psychology.