Anthropocentrism and Environmental Wellbeing in AI Ethics Standards: A Scoping Review and Discussion

IF 3.1 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AI (Basel, Switzerland) Pub Date : 2023-10-08 DOI:10.3390/ai4040043
Eryn Rigley, Adriane Chapman, Christine Evers, Will McNeill
{"title":"Anthropocentrism and Environmental Wellbeing in AI Ethics Standards: A Scoping Review and Discussion","authors":"Eryn Rigley, Adriane Chapman, Christine Evers, Will McNeill","doi":"10.3390/ai4040043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As AI deployment has broadened, so too has an awareness for the ethical implications and problems that may ensue from this deployment. In response, groups across multiple domains have issued AI ethics standards that rely on vague, high-level principles to find consensus. One such high-level principle that is common across the AI landscape is ‘human-centredness’, though oftentimes it is applied without due investigation into its merits and limitations and without a clear, common definition. This paper undertakes a scoping review of AI ethics standards to examine the commitment to ‘human-centredness’ and how this commitment interacts with other ethical concerns, namely, concerns for nonhumans animals and environmental wellbeing. We found that human-centred AI ethics standards tend to prioritise humans over nonhumans more so than nonhuman-centred standards. A critical analysis of our findings suggests that a commitment to human-centredness within AI ethics standards accords with the definition of anthropocentrism in moral philosophy: that humans have, at least, more intrinsic moral value than nonhumans. We consider some of the limitations of anthropocentric AI ethics, which include permitting harm to the environment and animals and undermining the stability of ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":93633,"journal":{"name":"AI (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ai4040043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As AI deployment has broadened, so too has an awareness for the ethical implications and problems that may ensue from this deployment. In response, groups across multiple domains have issued AI ethics standards that rely on vague, high-level principles to find consensus. One such high-level principle that is common across the AI landscape is ‘human-centredness’, though oftentimes it is applied without due investigation into its merits and limitations and without a clear, common definition. This paper undertakes a scoping review of AI ethics standards to examine the commitment to ‘human-centredness’ and how this commitment interacts with other ethical concerns, namely, concerns for nonhumans animals and environmental wellbeing. We found that human-centred AI ethics standards tend to prioritise humans over nonhumans more so than nonhuman-centred standards. A critical analysis of our findings suggests that a commitment to human-centredness within AI ethics standards accords with the definition of anthropocentrism in moral philosophy: that humans have, at least, more intrinsic moral value than nonhumans. We consider some of the limitations of anthropocentric AI ethics, which include permitting harm to the environment and animals and undermining the stability of ecosystems.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工智能伦理标准中的人类中心主义与环境福祉:范围审查与讨论
随着人工智能部署的扩大,人们也意识到这种部署可能带来的伦理影响和问题。作为回应,多个领域的团体发布了人工智能伦理标准,这些标准依赖于模糊的高级原则来寻求共识。“以人为本”是人工智能领域中常见的一个高级原则,尽管它的应用通常没有对其优点和局限性进行适当的调查,也没有明确的通用定义。本文对人工智能伦理标准进行了范围审查,以检查对“以人为本”的承诺,以及这种承诺如何与其他伦理问题(即对非人类动物和环境福祉的关注)相互作用。我们发现,以人为中心的人工智能伦理标准往往比以人为中心的标准更优先考虑人类而不是非人类。对我们研究结果的批判性分析表明,在人工智能伦理标准中对以人为中心的承诺符合道德哲学中人类中心主义的定义:人类至少比非人类具有更多的内在道德价值。我们考虑了以人类为中心的人工智能伦理的一些局限性,包括允许对环境和动物造成伤害,破坏生态系统的稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Can Artificial Intelligence Aid Diagnosis by Teleguided Point-of-Care Ultrasound? A Pilot Study for Evaluating a Novel Computer Algorithm for COVID-19 Diagnosis Using Lung Ultrasound. Chatbots Put to the Test in Math and Logic Problems: A Comparison and Assessment of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Google Bard Deep Learning Performance Characterization on GPUs for Various Quantization Frameworks From Trustworthy Principles to a Trustworthy Development Process: The Need and Elements of Trusted Development of AI Systems Algorithms for All: Can AI in the Mortgage Market Expand Access to Homeownership?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1