What does it mean to be good? The normative and metaethical problem with ‘AI for good’

Tom Stenson
{"title":"What does it mean to be good? The normative and metaethical problem with ‘AI for good’","authors":"Tom Stenson","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00501-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Using AI for good is an imperative for its development and regulation, but what exactly does it mean? This article contends that ‘AI for good’ is a powerful normative concept and is problematic for the ethics of AI because it oversimplifies complex philosophical questions in defining good and assumes a level of moral knowledge and certainty that may not be justified. ‘AI for good’ expresses a value judgement on what AI should be and its role in society, thereby functioning as a normative concept in AI ethics. As a moral statement, AI for good makes two things implicit: i) <i>we know what a good outcome is</i> and ii) <i>we know the process by which to achieve it</i>. By examining these two claims, this article will articulate the thesis that ‘AI for good’ should be examined as a <i>normative</i> and <i>metaethical</i> problem for AI ethics. Furthermore, it argues that we need to pay more attention to our relationship with normativity and how it guides what we believe the ‘work’ of ethical AI should be.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 2","pages":"1561 - 1570"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI and ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-024-00501-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using AI for good is an imperative for its development and regulation, but what exactly does it mean? This article contends that ‘AI for good’ is a powerful normative concept and is problematic for the ethics of AI because it oversimplifies complex philosophical questions in defining good and assumes a level of moral knowledge and certainty that may not be justified. ‘AI for good’ expresses a value judgement on what AI should be and its role in society, thereby functioning as a normative concept in AI ethics. As a moral statement, AI for good makes two things implicit: i) we know what a good outcome is and ii) we know the process by which to achieve it. By examining these two claims, this article will articulate the thesis that ‘AI for good’ should be examined as a normative and metaethical problem for AI ethics. Furthermore, it argues that we need to pay more attention to our relationship with normativity and how it guides what we believe the ‘work’ of ethical AI should be.

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
善意味着什么?人工智能为善 "的规范和元伦理学问题
将人工智能用于善是其发展和监管的必要条件,但这究竟意味着什么?本文认为“AI for good”是一个强大的规范性概念,对于AI的伦理来说是有问题的,因为它过度简化了定义“善”的复杂哲学问题,并假设了一种道德知识和确定性的水平,这可能是不合理的。“人工智能为善”表达了对人工智能应该是什么以及它在社会中的作用的价值判断,从而成为人工智能伦理的规范概念。作为一种道德声明,人工智能有两件事是隐含的:1)我们知道什么是好的结果,2)我们知道实现它的过程。通过研究这两种说法,本文将阐明“人工智能为善”应该作为人工智能伦理的规范和元伦理问题来研究的论点。此外,它认为我们需要更多地关注我们与规范性的关系,以及它如何指导我们认为道德人工智能的“工作”应该是什么。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond black-box medicine: a bioethical considerations for informed consent in AI-driven endoscopy Rectifying illusion: a Buddhist–Confucian framework for LLM hallucinations A dynamic contextual responsibility framework for evaluating large language models in socio-technical contexts Political fantasies of fairness: artificial intelligence, law, and the myth of sovereign reason A critical analysis of the ethical benefits and challenges related to the development and use of wearable AI devices
×
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:604180095
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