Evaluating computational models of ethics for autonomous decision making

Janvi Chhabra, Karthik Sama, Jayati Deshmukh, Srinath Srinivasa
{"title":"Evaluating computational models of ethics for autonomous decision making","authors":"Janvi Chhabra,&nbsp;Karthik Sama,&nbsp;Jayati Deshmukh,&nbsp;Srinath Srinivasa","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00532-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Computational models for ethical autonomy, are crucial for building trustworthy autonomous systems. While different paradigms of ethical autonomy are pursued, comparing and contrasting these paradigms remains a challenge. In this work, we present SPECTRA (Strategic Protocol Evaluation and Configuration Testbed for Responsible Autonomy) a general purpose multi-agent, message-passing framework on top of which, different models of computational ethics can be implemented. The paper also presents our implementation of four paradigms of ethics on this framework– <i>deontology</i>, <i>utilitarianism</i>, <i>virtue ethics</i> and a recently proposed paradigm called <i>computational transcendence</i>. We observe that although agents have the same goal, differences in their underlying paradigm of ethics have a significant impact on the outcomes for individual agents as well as on the system as a whole. We also simulate a mixed population of agents following different paradigms of ethics and study the emergent properties of the system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 3","pages":"2175 - 2188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","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/s43681-024-00532-4","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

Computational models for ethical autonomy, are crucial for building trustworthy autonomous systems. While different paradigms of ethical autonomy are pursued, comparing and contrasting these paradigms remains a challenge. In this work, we present SPECTRA (Strategic Protocol Evaluation and Configuration Testbed for Responsible Autonomy) a general purpose multi-agent, message-passing framework on top of which, different models of computational ethics can be implemented. The paper also presents our implementation of four paradigms of ethics on this framework– deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and a recently proposed paradigm called computational transcendence. We observe that although agents have the same goal, differences in their underlying paradigm of ethics have a significant impact on the outcomes for individual agents as well as on the system as a whole. We also simulate a mixed population of agents following different paradigms of ethics and study the emergent properties of the system.

Abstract Image

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
评估自主决策的伦理计算模型
伦理自治的计算模型对于建立可信赖的自治系统至关重要。尽管人们追求不同的伦理自治范式,但对这些范式进行比较和对比仍然是一个挑战。在这项工作中,我们提出了SPECTRA(负责任自治的战略协议评估和配置测试平台),这是一个通用的多智能体消息传递框架,在其之上,可以实现不同的计算伦理模型。本文还介绍了我们在这个框架上实施的四种伦理学范式——义务论、功利主义、美德伦理学和最近提出的称为计算超越的范式。我们观察到,尽管主体具有相同的目标,但其潜在道德范式的差异对个体主体以及整个系统的结果产生了重大影响。我们还模拟了一个遵循不同伦理范式的智能体混合群体,并研究了系统的涌现特性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Algorithms, language, and poetry: a phenomenological perspective Why AI might not gain moral standing: lessons from animal ethics From optimization to inquiry: a Deweyan criterion for machine intelligence Conversational AI agents in education: an umbrella review of current utilization, challenges, and future directions for ethical and responsible use Fostering an enabling environment for health AI innovation and scale: The need for tailored ethics training for innovators in low- and middle-income countries
×
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