Living well with AI: Virtue, education, and artificial intelligence

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Education Pub Date : 2024-02-16 DOI:10.1177/14778785241231561
Nicholas Smith, Darby Vickers
{"title":"Living well with AI: Virtue, education, and artificial intelligence","authors":"Nicholas Smith, Darby Vickers","doi":"10.1177/14778785241231561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence technologies have become a ubiquitous part of human life. This prompts us to ask, ‘how should we live well with artificial intelligence?’ Currently, the most prominent candidate answers to this question are principlist. According to these approaches, if you teach people some finite set of principles or convince them to adopt the right rules, people will be able to live and act well with artificial intelligence, even in an evolving and opaque moral world. We find the dominant principlist approaches to be ill-suited to providing forward-looking moral guidance regarding living well with artificial intelligence. We analyze some of the proposed principles to show that they oscillate between being too vague and too specific. We also argue that such rules are unlikely to be flexible enough to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. By contrast, we argue for an Aristotelian virtue ethics approach to artificial intelligence ethics. Aristotelian virtue ethics provides a concrete and actionable guidance that is also flexible; thus, it is uniquely well placed to deal with the forward-looking and rapidly changing landscape of life with artificial intelligence. However, virtue ethics is agent-based rather than action-based. Using virtue ethics as a basis for living well with artificial intelligence requires ensuring that at least some virtuous agents also possess the relevant scientific and technical expertise. Since virtue ethics does not prescribe a set of rules, it requires exemplars who can serve as a model for those learning to be virtuous. Cultivating virtue is challenging, especially in the absence of moral sages. Despite this difficulty, we think the best option is to attempt what virtue ethics requires, even though no system of training can guarantee the production of virtuous agents. We end with two alternative visions – one from each of the two authors – about the practicality of such an approach.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785241231561","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Artificial intelligence technologies have become a ubiquitous part of human life. This prompts us to ask, ‘how should we live well with artificial intelligence?’ Currently, the most prominent candidate answers to this question are principlist. According to these approaches, if you teach people some finite set of principles or convince them to adopt the right rules, people will be able to live and act well with artificial intelligence, even in an evolving and opaque moral world. We find the dominant principlist approaches to be ill-suited to providing forward-looking moral guidance regarding living well with artificial intelligence. We analyze some of the proposed principles to show that they oscillate between being too vague and too specific. We also argue that such rules are unlikely to be flexible enough to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. By contrast, we argue for an Aristotelian virtue ethics approach to artificial intelligence ethics. Aristotelian virtue ethics provides a concrete and actionable guidance that is also flexible; thus, it is uniquely well placed to deal with the forward-looking and rapidly changing landscape of life with artificial intelligence. However, virtue ethics is agent-based rather than action-based. Using virtue ethics as a basis for living well with artificial intelligence requires ensuring that at least some virtuous agents also possess the relevant scientific and technical expertise. Since virtue ethics does not prescribe a set of rules, it requires exemplars who can serve as a model for those learning to be virtuous. Cultivating virtue is challenging, especially in the absence of moral sages. Despite this difficulty, we think the best option is to attempt what virtue ethics requires, even though no system of training can guarantee the production of virtuous agents. We end with two alternative visions – one from each of the two authors – about the practicality of such an approach.
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
与人工智能一起美好生活:美德、教育和人工智能
人工智能技术已经成为人类生活中无处不在的一部分。这促使我们追问:"我们应该如何与人工智能好好相处?目前,这个问题最主要的候选答案是原则主义。根据这些方法,如果你教给人们一些有限的原则,或者说服他们采用正确的规则,那么即使在一个不断发展和不透明的道德世界里,人们也能与人工智能很好地相处和行动。我们发现,主流的原则主义方法并不适合为人工智能提供前瞻性的道德指导。我们分析了一些拟议的原则,发现它们在过于模糊和过于具体之间摇摆不定。我们还认为,这些规则不可能有足够的灵活性来适应快速变化的环境。与此相反,我们主张用亚里士多德的美德伦理方法来处理人工智能伦理问题。亚里士多德美德伦理学提供了具体可行的指导,同时也具有灵活性;因此,它在应对前瞻性和快速变化的人工智能生活环境方面具有独特的优势。然而,美德伦理是以行为主体为基础的,而不是以行动为基础的。将美德伦理作为人工智能生活的基础,需要确保至少有一些美德代理人同时具备相关的科技专业知识。由于美德伦理并没有规定一套规则,因此它需要能为学习美德的人树立榜样的典范。培养美德具有挑战性,尤其是在没有道德圣贤的情况下。尽管困难重重,但我们认为最好的选择是尝试美德伦理所要求的,尽管没有任何培训体系能保证培养出美德的人。最后,我们就这种方法的实用性提出了两种不同的看法--两位作者各持一种看法。
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
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Julian Culp, Johannes Drerup and Douglas Yacek (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education Education for deliberative democracy through the long-term view Education for flourishing: A social contract for foundational competencies Book review: Barbara S Stengel, Responsibility: Philosophy of Education in Practice How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum
×
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