Social choice ethics in artificial intelligence

被引:0
作者
Seth D. Baum
机构
[1] Global Catastrophic Risk Institute,
来源
AI & SOCIETY | 2020年 / 35卷
关键词
Artificial intelligence; Ethics; Social choice; Standing; Measurement; Aggregation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A major approach to the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) 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.
引用
收藏
页码:165 / 176
页数:11
相关论文
共 75 条
  • [1] Allen C(2000)Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent J Exp Theor Artif Intell 12 251-261
  • [2] Varner G(2005)Artificial morality: top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches Ethics Inf Technol 7 149-155
  • [3] Zinser J(2015)What’s wrong with factory farming? Public Health Ethics 8 246-254
  • [4] Allen C(2014)Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis Psychol Bull 140 1556-1581
  • [5] Smit I(2005)So right it’s wrong: groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making Adv Exp Soc Psychol 37 219-253
  • [6] Wallach W(2008)Better to exist: a reply to Benatar J Med Ethics 34 875-876
  • [7] Anomaly J(2009)Description, prescription and the choice of discount rates Ecol Econ 69 197-205
  • [8] Balliet D(2015)Fears of an AI pioneer Science 349 252-46
  • [9] Wu J(2016)Robotic nudges: the ethics of engineering a more socially just human being Sci Eng Ethics 22 31-381
  • [10] De Dreu CKW(2009)Moral status and human enhancement Philos Public Aff 37 346-153