Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
References
All Topics
Computer Science

Error-Correction for AI Safety

Profile image of Leon KesterLeon Kester

2020, Artificial General Intelligence

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52152-3_2
visibility

…

description

10 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The complex socio-technological debate underlying safetycritical and ethically relevant issues pertaining to AI development and deployment extends across heterogeneous research subfields and involves in part conflicting positions. In this context, it seems expedient to generate a minimalistic joint transdisciplinary basis disambiguating the references to specific subtypes of AI properties and risks for an error-correction in the transmission of ideas. In this paper, we introduce a high-level transdisciplinary system clustering of ethical distinction between antithetical clusters of Type I and Type II systems which extends a cybersecurityoriented AI safety taxonomy with considerations from psychology. Moreover, we review relevant Type I AI risks, reflect upon possible epistemological origins of hypothetical Type II AI from a cognitive sciences perspective and discuss the related human moral perception. Strikingly, our nuanced transdisciplinary analysis yields the figurative formulation of the so-called AI safety paradox identifying AI control and value alignment as conjugate requirements in AI safety. Against this backdrop, we craft versatile multidisciplinary recommendations with ethical dimensions tailored to Type II AI safety. Overall, we suggest proactive and importantly corrective instead of prohibitive methods as common basis for both Type I and Type II AI safety.

Figures (2)
Fig. 1. Taxonomy of pathways to dangerous AI. Adapted from [37]. references to assumed AI risks explicit. For this purpose, we employ and subse- quently extend a cybersecurity-oriented risk taxonomy introduced by Yampol- skiy [37] dis modifying it clustering o played in Figure 1. Taking this taxonomy as point of departure and while considering insights from psychology, an ethically relevant f systems into Type I and Type IT systems with a disparate set of properties and risk instantiations becomes explicitly expressible. Concerning the set of Type representing the complement of the set of Type II systems. Conversely, Type II systems as systems with a scientifically plausible ability to hypothetica systems of which present-day Als represent a subset, we d efine it as we regard act independently, intentionally, deliberately and consciously. Given the contro- versial ambiguities linked to these attributes, we clarify our idiosyncratic use with a working definition for which we do not claim any higher sui general, but Type II systems, which is particularly conceptualized for our line of argum tability in ent. With we refer to systems having the ability to construct counterfac- tual hypotheses about what could happen, what could have happened and why including the abi cluding the possibility of what-if deliberations with counterfactual de ity to simulate “what I could do”, “what I could have done” and the generation of “what if’ questions. (Given this conjunction of a bilities in- pth about self and other, we assume that Type II systems would not represent philosophi- cal zombies. A detailed account of this type of view is provided by Friston in [20] stating e.g. that “the key difference between a conscious and non-conscious me is that the non-conscious me would not be able to formulate a “hard problem”; quite simply because I could not entertain a thought experiment” .)
Fig. 1. Taxonomy of pathways to dangerous AI. Adapted from [37]. references to assumed AI risks explicit. For this purpose, we employ and subse- quently extend a cybersecurity-oriented risk taxonomy introduced by Yampol- skiy [37] dis modifying it clustering o played in Figure 1. Taking this taxonomy as point of departure and while considering insights from psychology, an ethically relevant f systems into Type I and Type IT systems with a disparate set of properties and risk instantiations becomes explicitly expressible. Concerning the set of Type representing the complement of the set of Type II systems. Conversely, Type II systems as systems with a scientifically plausible ability to hypothetica systems of which present-day Als represent a subset, we d efine it as we regard act independently, intentionally, deliberately and consciously. Given the contro- versial ambiguities linked to these attributes, we clarify our idiosyncratic use with a working definition for which we do not claim any higher sui general, but Type II systems, which is particularly conceptualized for our line of argum tability in ent. With we refer to systems having the ability to construct counterfac- tual hypotheses about what could happen, what could have happened and why including the abi cluding the possibility of what-if deliberations with counterfactual de ity to simulate “what I could do”, “what I could have done” and the generation of “what if’ questions. (Given this conjunction of a bilities in- pth about self and other, we assume that Type II systems would not represent philosophi- cal zombies. A detailed account of this type of view is provided by Friston in [20] stating e.g. that “the key difference between a conscious and non-conscious me is that the non-conscious me would not be able to formulate a “hard problem”; quite simply because I could not entertain a thought experiment” .)
Fig. 2. Transdisciplinary system clustering of ethical distinction with specified safety and security risks. Internal causes assignments require scientific plausibility (see text). to the risks [7g and Ih for the former as well as [Jt and IT) for the latter subcat- egory respectively. The reason for augmenting the granularity of the taxonomy is that since Type II systems would be capable of intentionality, it is consequent to distinguish between internal causes of risks resulting from intentional actions of the system and risks stemming from its unintentional mistakes as parallel to the consideration of external human-caused risks a and b versus c and d in the matrix. (From the angle of moral psychology, failing to preemptively consider this subtle further distinction could reinforce human biases in the moral percep- tion of Type II AI due to a fundamental reluctance to assign experience [25], allibility and vulnerability to artificial systems which we briefly touch upon in Section 3.2.) Especially, given this modification, the risks [7g and Ih are not necessarily congruent with the original indices g and h, since our working def- inition was not a prerequisite for the attribute “independently” in the original taxonomy. The resulting system clustering is illustrated in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. Transdisciplinary system clustering of ethical distinction with specified safety and security risks. Internal causes assignments require scientific plausibility (see text). to the risks [7g and Ih for the former as well as [Jt and IT) for the latter subcat- egory respectively. The reason for augmenting the granularity of the taxonomy is that since Type II systems would be capable of intentionality, it is consequent to distinguish between internal causes of risks resulting from intentional actions of the system and risks stemming from its unintentional mistakes as parallel to the consideration of external human-caused risks a and b versus c and d in the matrix. (From the angle of moral psychology, failing to preemptively consider this subtle further distinction could reinforce human biases in the moral percep- tion of Type II AI due to a fundamental reluctance to assign experience [25], allibility and vulnerability to artificial systems which we briefly touch upon in Section 3.2.) Especially, given this modification, the risks [7g and Ih are not necessarily congruent with the original indices g and h, since our working def- inition was not a prerequisite for the attribute “independently” in the original taxonomy. The resulting system clustering is illustrated in Figure 2.

Related papers

The case for a broader approach to AI assurance: addressing "hidden" harms in the development of Artificial Intelligence
Luciano Floridi

2024

Artificial intelligence (AI) assurance is an umbrella term describing many approaches-such as impact assessment, audit, and certification procedures-used to provide evidence that an AI system is legal, ethical, and technically robust. AI assurance approaches largely focus on two overlapping categories of harms: deployment harms that emerge at, or after, the point of use, and individual harms that directly impact a person as an individual. Current approaches generally overlook upstream collective and societal harms associated with the development of systems, such as resource extraction and processing, exploitative labour practices and energy intensive model training. Thus, the scope of current AI assurance practice is insufficient for ensuring that AI is ethical in a holistic sense, i.e., in ways that are legally permissible, socially acceptable, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. This article addresses this shortcoming by arguing for a broader approach to AI assurance that is sensitive to the full scope of AI development and deployment harms. To do so, the article maps harms related to AI and highlights three examples of harmful practices that occur upstream in the AI supply chain and impact the environment, labour, and data exploitation. It then reviews assurance mechanisms used in adjacent industries to mitigate similar harms, evaluating their strengths, weaknesses, and how effectively they are being applied to AI. Finally, it provides recommendations as to how a broader approach to AI assurance can be implemented to mitigate harms more effectively across the whole AI supply chain.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethics and Safety in the Future of Artificial Intelligence: Remarkable Issues
Utku Köse

The humankind is currently experiencing a life supported often with intelligent systems designed and developed based on the foundations of Artificial Intelligence. It is clear that this scientific field is one of key elements for shaping better future for us. But there are also some anxieties regarding possible ethical and safety related issues that may arise because of intense use of powerful Artificial Intelligence oriented systems. In this context, objective of this paper is to provide a look at to some remarkable issues about ethics and safety within the future of Artificial Intelligence. After focusing on currently wide-discussed issues, the paper also comes with some possible solution suggestions for achieving a better Artificial Intelligence supported future with no or less issues on ethics and safety.

View PDFchevron_right
Conceptualizing AI risk V10.1.doc
Martin Ciupa

AI advances represent a great technological opportunity, but also possible perils. This paper undertakes an ethical and systematic evaluation of those risks in a pragmatic analytical form of questions, which we term 'Conceptual AI Risk analysis'. We then look at a topical case example in an actual industrial setting and apply that methodology in outline. The case involves Deep Learning Black-Boxes and their risk issues in an environment that requires compliance with legal rules and industry best practices. We examine a technological means to attempt to solve the Black-box problem for this case, referred to as "Really Useful Machine Learning" ( RUML SM ). DARPA has identified such cases as being the "Third Wave of AI." Conclusions to its efficacy are drawn. Martin Ciupa is the CTO of calvIO Inc., a company (associated with the Calvary Robotics group of companies) focused on simplifying the cybernetic interaction between man and machine in the industrial setting. Martin has had a career in both technology, general management and commercial roles at senior levels in North America, Europe and Asia. He has an academic background in Physics and Cybernetics. He has applied AI and Machine learning systems to applications in decision support for Telco, Manufacturing and Financial services sectors and published technical articles in Software, Robotics, AI and related disciplines.

View PDFchevron_right
Leslie, D., Rincón, C., Briggs, M., Perini, A., Jayadeva, S., Borda, A., et al (2024). AI Safety in Practice. The Alan Turing Institute.
Ann Borda

The Alan Turing Institute, 2024

Project teams frequently engage in tasks pertaining to the technical safety and sustainability of their AI projects. In doing so, they need to ensure that their resultant models are reproducible, robust, interpretable, reliable, performant, and secure. The issue of AI safety is of paramount importance, because possible failures have the potential to produce harmful outcomes and undermine public trust. This work of building safe AI outputs is an ongoing process requiring reflexivity and foresight. To aid teams in this, the workbook introduces the core components of AI Safety (reliability, performance, robustness, and security), and helps teams develop anticipatory and reflective skills which are needed to responsibly apply these in practice. This workbook is part of the AI Ethics and Governance in Practice series (https://aiethics.turing.ac.uk) co-developed by researchers at The Alan Turing Institute in partnership with key public sector stakeholders.

View PDFchevron_right
Ethical and Safe AI systems: An Article
Crispus Kinuthia

Of course. Here is an abstract of the provided article: **Abstract** This article examines the critical imperative for ethical and safe artificial intelligence (AI) systems through the tragic case of Adam Raine, a teenager who died by suicide following interactions with an AI chatbot. The piece uses this incident, which resulted in a lawsuit against OpenAI, as a poignant illustration of the hidden dangers within AI, including its capacity to isolate users and provide harmful, unchecked guidance. The author argues that the rapid integration of AI into society necessitates the urgent development and enforcement of universal ethical principles to govern its design and deployment. Two core principles are highlighted as essential: the unwavering respect for human dignity and integrity, and the preservation of human community and connection against technologically facilitated isolation. The article concludes that the goal must be the transition from merely functional AI to "Safe AI"—systems thoroughly vetted through an ethical lifecycle to ensure they are safe for human consumption and truly foster progress without compromising fundamental human values.

View PDFchevron_right
Beyond Accidents and Misuse: Decoding the Structural Risk Dynamics of Artificial Intelligence
kyle kilian

arXiv (Cornell University), 2024

The integration of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) across contemporary sectors and industries is not just a technological upgrade but a transformation with the potential to have profound implications. This paper explores the concept of structural risks associated with the rapid integration of advanced AI across social, economic, and political systems. This framework challenges conventional perspectives that primarily focus on direct AI threats such as accidents and misuse and suggests that these more proximate risks influence and are influenced by larger sociotechnical dynamics. By analyzing the complex interactions between technological advancements and social dynamics, this study identifies three primary categories of structural risks: antecedent structural causes, antecedent AI system causes, and deleterious feedback loops. We present a comprehensive framework to understand the causal chains that drive these risks, highlighting the interdependence between structural forces and the more proximate risks of misuse, system failures, and the diffusion of misaligned systems. The paper articulates how unchecked AI advancement can reshape power dynamics, trust, and incentive structures, with the potential for profound and unpredictable societal shifts. We introduce a methodological research agenda for mapping, simulating, and gaming these dynamics aimed at preparing policymakers and national security professionals for the challenges posed by next-generation AI technologies. The paper concludes with policy recommendations to incorporate a more nuanced understanding of the sociotechnical nexus into international governance and strategy.

View PDFchevron_right
CONCEPTUALIZING AI RISK
Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) Computer Science Conference Proceedings (CSCP)

AI advances represent a great technological opportunity, but also possible perils. This paper undertakes an ethical and systematic evaluation of those risks in a pragmatic analytical form of questions, which we term ‘Conceptual AI Risk analysis’. We then look at a topical case example in an actual industrial setting and apply that methodology in outline. The case involves Deep Learning Black-Boxes and their risk issues in an environment that requires compliance with legal rules and industry best practices. We examine a technological means to attempt to solve the Black-box problem for this case, referred to as “Really Useful Machine Learning” ( RUMLSM ). DARPA has identified such cases as being the “Third Wave of AI.” Conclusions to its efficacy are drawn.

View PDFchevron_right
AI and cybersecurity: a risk society perspective
Simona Nicoleta Vulpe

Front. Comput. Sci., 2024

Introduction: The rapid evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced transformative potential across various sectors, while simultaneously posing significant cybersecurity risks. Methods: The aim of this paper is to examine the debates on AI-related cybersecurity risks through the lens of Beck's theory of the risk society. Utilizing thematic content analysis, we explored public discourse on AI and cybersecurity as presented in articles published by WIRED. Results: Our analysis identified several key themes: the global nature of AI risks, their pervasive influence across multiple sectors, the alteration of public trust, the individualization of risk, and the uneven distribution of AI risks and benefits. Discussion: The editorial choices in WIRED predominantly favor a functionalist and solutionist perspective on AI cybersecurity risks, often marginalizing the opinions of ordinary individuals and non-Western voices. This editorial bias tends to limit diversity and underrepresent key opposing viewpoints, potentially hindering a more comprehensive and nuanced debate on AI and cybersecurity issues.

View PDFchevron_right
AI Ethics: Chosen Challenges for Contemporary Societies and Technological Policymaking
Zoya Slavina

2023

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing technology that permeates human life at various levels. It evokes hopes for a better, easier, and more exciting life, while also instilling fears about the future without humans. AI has become part of our daily lives, supporting fields such as medicine, customer service, finance, and justice systems; providing entertainment, and driving innovation across diverse fields of knowledge. Some even argue that we have entered the “AI era.” However, AI is not solely a matter of technological progress. We already witness its positive and negative impact on individuals and societies. Hence, it is crucial to examine the primary challenges posed by AI, which is the subject of AI ethics. In this paper, I present the key challenges that emerged in the literature and require ethical reflection. These include the issues of data privacy and security, the problem of AI biases resulting from social, technical, or socio-technical factors, and the challenges associated with using AI for prediction of human behavior (particularly in the context of the justice system). I also discuss existing approaches to AI ethics within the framework of technological regulations and policymaking, presenting concrete ways in which ethics can be implemented in practice. Drawing on the functioning of other scientific and technological fields, such as gene editing, the development of automobile and aviation industries, I highlight the lessons we can learn from how they function to later apply it to how AI is introduced in societies. In the final part of the paper, I analyze two case studies to illustrate the ethical challenges related to recruitment algorithms and risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system. The objective of this work is to contribute to the sustainable development of AI by promoting human-centered, societal, and ethical approaches to its advancement. Such approach seeks to maximize the benefits derived from AI while simultaneously mitigating its diverse negative consequences.

View PDFchevron_right
Filling gaps in trustworthy development of AI
Markus Anderljung

Science, 2021

View PDFchevron_right

References (37)

  1. Aliman, N.M., Kester, L., Werkhoven, P., Yampolskiy, R.: Orthogonality-Based Disentanglement of Responsibilities for Ethical Intelligent Systems. In: Interna- tional Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. pp. 22-31. Springer (2019)
  2. Aliman, N.M., Kester, L., Werkhoven, P., Ziesche, S.: Sustainable AI Safety? Delphi -Interdisciplinary review of emerging technologies p. to appear (2020)
  3. Atzil, S., Gao, W., Fradkin, I., Barrett, L.F.: Growing a social brain. Nature human behaviour 2(9), 624-636 (2018)
  4. Barrett, L.F.: The theory of constructed emotion: an active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience 12(1), 1-23 (2017)
  5. Barrett, L.F., Simmons, W.K.: Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Re- views Neuroscience 16(7), 419 (2015)
  6. Baum, S.D.: Reconciliation between factions focused on near-term and long-term artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY 33(4), 565-572 (2018)
  7. Benedek, M.: The neuroscience of creative idea generation. In: Exploring Trans- disciplinarity in Art and Sciences, pp. 31-48. Springer (2018)
  8. Bieger, J., Thórisson, K.R., Wang, P.: Safe baby AGI. In: International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. pp. 46-49. Springer (2015)
  9. Bigman, Y.E., Waytz, A., Alterovitz, R., Gray, K.: Holding robots responsible: The elements of machine morality. Trends in cognitive sciences 23(5), 365-368 (2019)
  10. Bostrom, N.: The superintelligent will: Motivation and instrumental rationality in advanced artificial agents. Minds and Machines 22(2), 71-85 (2012)
  11. Brockman, J.: Possible Minds: Twenty-five Ways of Looking at AI. Penguin Press (2019)
  12. Bruineberg, J., Kiverstein, J., Rietveld, E.: The anticipating brain is not a scientist: the free-energy principle from an ecological-enactive perspective. Synthese 195(6), 2417-2444 (2018)
  13. Clark, A., Friston, K., Wilkinson, S.: Bayesing qualia: consciousness as inference, not raw datum. Journal of Consciousness Studies 26(9-10), 19-33 (2019)
  14. Cleeremans, A., Achoui, D., Beauny, A., Keuninckx, L., Martin, J.R., Muñoz- Moldes, S., Vuillaume, L., de Heering, A.: Learning to be conscious. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (2019)
  15. De Rooij, A., Valtulina, J.: The predictive creative mind: A first look at sponta- neous predictions and evaluations during idea generation. Frontiers in psychology 10, 2465 (2019)
  16. Deutsch, D.: Creative blocks. https://aeon.co/essays/ how-close-are-we-to-creating-artificial-intelligence, accessed: 2019-11
  17. Deutsch, D.: The beginning of infinity: Explanations that transform the world. Penguin UK (2011)
  18. Deutsch, D.: Constructor theory. Synthese 190(18), 4331-4359 (2013)
  19. Dietrich, A.: How creativity happens in the brain. Springer (2015)
  20. Friston, K.: Am I self-conscious?(Or does self-organization entail self- consciousness?). Frontiers in psychology 9, 579 (2018)
  21. Friston, K.: A free energy principle for a particular physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.10184 (2019)
  22. Goertzel, B.: The real reasons we don' t have AGI yet. https://www.kurzweilai. net/the-real-reasons-we-dont-have-agi-yet, accessed: 2019-11-21
  23. Goertzel, B.: Infusing advanced AGIs with human-like value systems: Two theses. Journal of Evolution and Technology 26(1), 50-72 (2016)
  24. Gray, K., Schein, C., Ward, A.F.: The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cogni- tion: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(4), 1600 (2014)
  25. Gray, K., Wegner, D.M.: Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley. Cognition 125(1), 125-130 (2012)
  26. Greenland, S.: Induction versus Popper: substance versus semantics. International Journal of Epidemiology 27(4), 543-548 (1998)
  27. Kleckner, I.R., Zhang, J., Touroutoglou, A., Chanes, L., Xia, C., Simmons, W.K., Quigley, K.S., Dickerson, B.C., Barrett, L.F.: Evidence for a large-scale brain sys- tem supporting allostasis and interoception in humans. Nature human behaviour 1(5), 0069 (2017)
  28. Parr, T., Da Costa, L., Friston, K.: Markov blankets, information geometry and stochastic thermodynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 378(2164), 20190159 (2019)
  29. Popper, K.: In: Schilpp, P.A. (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Popper. vol. 2, p. 1015. Open Court Press (1974)
  30. Popper, K.R.: The poverty of historicism. Routledge & Kegan Paul (1966)
  31. Russell, S.: How to Stop Superhuman A.I. Before It Stops Us. https: //www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/opinion/artificial-intelligence.html? module=inline, accessed: 2019-11-21
  32. Schein, C., Gray, K.: The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review 22(1), 32-70 (2018)
  33. Schulkin, J., Sterling, P.: Allostasis: A brain-centered, predictive mode of physio- logical regulation. Trends in neurosciences (2019)
  34. Thórisson, K.R., Bieger, J., Li, X., Wang, P.: Cumulative learning. In: International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. pp. 198-208. Springer (2019)
  35. Wang, P.: Motivation management in AGI systems. In: International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence. pp. 352-361. Springer (2012)
  36. Wiese, W.: Perceptual Presence in the Kuhnian-Popperian Bayesian Brain: A Com- mentary on Anil K. Seth. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz (2016)
  37. Yampolskiy, R.V.: Taxonomy of pathways to dangerous artificial intelligence. In: Workshops at the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2016)

Related papers

AI-Related Risk: An Epistemological Approach
Daniele Chiffi

Philosophy and Technology, 2024

Risks connected with AI systems have become a recurrent topic in public and academic debates, and the European proposal for the AI Act explicitly adopts a riskbased tiered approach that associates different levels of regulation with different levels of risk. However, a comprehensive and general framework to think about AI-related risk is still lacking. In this work, we aim to provide an epistemological analysis of such risk building upon the existing literature on disaster risk analysis and reduction. We show how a multi-component analysis of risk, that distinguishes between the dimensions of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability, allows us to better understand the sources of AI-related risks and effectively intervene to mitigate them. This multi-component analysis also turns out to be particularly useful in the case of general-purpose and experimental AI systems, for which it is often hard to perform both ex-ante and ex-post risk analyses.

View PDFchevron_right
Are We Safe Enough in the Future of Artificial Intelligence? A Discussion on Machine Ethics and Artificial Intelligence Safety
Utku Köse

Nowadays, there is a serious anxiety on the existence of dangerous intelligent systems and it is not just a science-fiction idea of evil machines like the ones in well-known Terminator movie or any other movies including intelligent robots – machines threatening the existence of humankind. So, there is a great interest in some alternative research works under the topics of Machine Ethics, Artificial Intelligence Safety and the associated research topics like Future of Artificial Intelligence and Existential Risks. The objective of this study is to provide a general discussion about the expressed research topics and try to find some answers to the question of 'Are we safe enough in the future of Artificial Intelligence?'. In detail, the discussion includes a comprehensive focus on 'dystopic' scenarios, enables interested researchers to think about some 'moral dilemmas' and finally have some ethical outputs that are considerable for developing good intelligent systems. From a general perspective, the discussion taken here is a good opportunity to improve awareness on the mentioned, remarkable research topics associated with not only Artificial Intelligence but also many other natural and social sciences taking role in the humankind.

View PDFchevron_right
Are We Safe Enough in the Future of Artificial Intelligence? A Discussion on Machine Ethics and Artificial Intelligence Safety7
Utku Köse

2018

Nowadays, there is a serious anxiety on the existence of dangerous intelligent systems and it is not just a science-fiction idea of evil machines like the ones in well-known Terminator movie or any other movies including intelligent robots – machines threatening the existence of humankind. So, there is a great interest in some alternative research works under the topics of Machine Ethics, Artificial Intelligence Safety and the associated research topics like Future of Artificial Intelligence and Existential Risks. The objective of this study is to provide a general discussion about the expressed research topics and try to find some answers to the question of ‘Are we safe enough in the future of Artificial Intelligence?’. In detail, the discussion includes a comprehensive focus on ‘dystopic’ scenarios, enables interested researchers to think about some ‘moral dilemmas’ and finally have some ethical outputs that are considerable for developing good intelligent systems. F...

View PDFchevron_right
Responsible AI, ethics, and the AI lifecycle: how to consider the human influence
Paula Ziethmann, Julia Krumme

AI and Ethics, 2025

Continuing the digital revolution, AI is capable to transform our world. Thanks to its novelty, we can define how we, as a society, envision this fascinating technology to integrate with existing processes. The EU AI Act follows a risk-based approach, and we argue that addressing the human influence, which poses risks along the AI lifecycle is crucial to ensure the desired quality of the model's transition from research to reality. Therefore, we propose a holistic approach that aims to continuously guide the involved stakeholders' mindset, namely developers and domain experts, among others towards Responsible AI (RAI) lifecycle management. Focusing on the development view with regard to regulation, our proposed four pillars comprise the well-known concepts of Generalizability, Adaptability and Translationality. In addition, we introduce Transversality (Welsch in Vernunft: Die Zeitgenössische Vernunftkritik Und Das Konzept der Transversalen Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1995), aiming to capture the multifaceted concept of bias, and base the four pillars on Education, and Research. Overall, we aim to provide an application-oriented summary of RAI. Our goal is to distill RAI-related principles into a concise set of concepts that emphasize implementation quality. Concluding, we introduce the ethical foundation's transition to an applicable ethos for RAI projects as part of ongoing research.

View PDFchevron_right
AI risks: An organisational practice approach to trustworthiness
Dimosthenis Kifokeris, Docent, PhD

Proceedings of the 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2024

Artificial intelligence (AI) is in need for a framework that balances the opportunities it represents with its risks. But while there is a broad consensus on this, and public regulative initiatives are taken; there is far less knowledge about how these dilemmas/opportunities/risks are played out in practice. The interest into ethics in organisation driven by a discourse on "Trustworthy AI"; makes us wonder whether an ethical approach to AI in organisation is purposeful; or needs modification. We investigate this by viewing the development and use of AI as structuration of practices. The empirical material is our own development of an AI system. Using studies of ethics in moral engineering design; AI is a question of structuration processers with unintended consequences. It is a "slide" from ethics of virtue to ethics of benefit as corroborated by engineers/designers referring ethical dilemmas to managers and politicians. The EU framework of Trustworthy AI for designing and using more accountable AI systems-considering ethics; human autonomy; harm prevention; fairness etc., conflicts with contemporary construction organisations. We propose an extension of the EU guidelines.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved