人工智能风险监管的规范挑战

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Nanoethics Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9
Carsten Orwat, Jascha Bareis, Anja Folberth, Jutta Jahnel, Christian Wadephul
{"title":"人工智能风险监管的规范挑战","authors":"Carsten Orwat, Jascha Bareis, Anja Folberth, Jutta Jahnel, Christian Wadephul","doi":"10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Approaches aimed at regulating artificial intelligence (AI) include a particular form of risk regulation, i.e. a risk-based approach. The most prominent example is the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). This article addresses the challenges for adequate risk regulation that arise primarily from the specific type of risks involved, i.e. risks to the protection of fundamental rights and fundamental societal values. This is mainly due to the normative ambiguity of such rights and societal values when attempts are made to select, interpret, specify or operationalise them for the purposes of risk assessments and risk mitigation. This is exemplified by (1) human dignity, (2) informational self-determination, data protection and privacy, (3) anti-discrimination, fairness and justice, and (4) the common good. Normative ambiguities require normative choices, which are assigned to different actors under the regime of the AI Act. Particularly critical normative choices include selecting normative concepts by which to operationalise and specify risks, aggregating and quantifying risks (including the use of metrics), balancing value conflicts, setting levels of acceptable risks, and standardisation. To ensure that these normative choices do not lack democratic legitimacy and to avoid legal uncertainty, further political processes and scientific debates are suggested.</p>","PeriodicalId":18802,"journal":{"name":"Nanoethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence\",\"authors\":\"Carsten Orwat, Jascha Bareis, Anja Folberth, Jutta Jahnel, Christian Wadephul\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Approaches aimed at regulating artificial intelligence (AI) include a particular form of risk regulation, i.e. a risk-based approach. The most prominent example is the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). This article addresses the challenges for adequate risk regulation that arise primarily from the specific type of risks involved, i.e. risks to the protection of fundamental rights and fundamental societal values. This is mainly due to the normative ambiguity of such rights and societal values when attempts are made to select, interpret, specify or operationalise them for the purposes of risk assessments and risk mitigation. This is exemplified by (1) human dignity, (2) informational self-determination, data protection and privacy, (3) anti-discrimination, fairness and justice, and (4) the common good. Normative ambiguities require normative choices, which are assigned to different actors under the regime of the AI Act. Particularly critical normative choices include selecting normative concepts by which to operationalise and specify risks, aggregating and quantifying risks (including the use of metrics), balancing value conflicts, setting levels of acceptable risks, and standardisation. To ensure that these normative choices do not lack democratic legitimacy and to avoid legal uncertainty, further political processes and scientific debates are suggested.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nanoethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nanoethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nanoethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-024-00454-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

旨在监管人工智能(AI)的方法包括一种特殊形式的风险监管,即基于风险的方法。最突出的例子是欧盟的《人工智能法》(AI Act)。本文探讨了充分的风险监管所面临的挑战,这些挑战主要源于所涉及的特定风险类型,即对基本权利和基本社会价值观保护的风险。这主要是由于在为风险评估和风险缓解之目的而试图选择、解释、明确或操作这些权利和社会价 值观时,这些权利和价值观的规范性含糊不清。例如:(1) 人的尊严,(2) 信息自决、数据保护和隐私,(3) 反歧视、公平和正义,(4) 共同利益。规范的模糊性要求做出规范性选择,这些选择在《人工智能法》的制度下分配给不同的行为者。特别关键的规范性选择包括选择规范性概念,据以操作和具体说明风险、汇总和量化风险(包括使用度量标准)、平衡价值冲突、设定可接受的风险水平以及标准化。为确保这些规范性选择不缺乏民主合法性并避免法律的不确定性,建议开展进一步的政治进程和科学辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

Approaches aimed at regulating artificial intelligence (AI) include a particular form of risk regulation, i.e. a risk-based approach. The most prominent example is the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). This article addresses the challenges for adequate risk regulation that arise primarily from the specific type of risks involved, i.e. risks to the protection of fundamental rights and fundamental societal values. This is mainly due to the normative ambiguity of such rights and societal values when attempts are made to select, interpret, specify or operationalise them for the purposes of risk assessments and risk mitigation. This is exemplified by (1) human dignity, (2) informational self-determination, data protection and privacy, (3) anti-discrimination, fairness and justice, and (4) the common good. Normative ambiguities require normative choices, which are assigned to different actors under the regime of the AI Act. Particularly critical normative choices include selecting normative concepts by which to operationalise and specify risks, aggregating and quantifying risks (including the use of metrics), balancing value conflicts, setting levels of acceptable risks, and standardisation. To ensure that these normative choices do not lack democratic legitimacy and to avoid legal uncertainty, further political processes and scientific debates are suggested.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nanoethics
Nanoethics HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale will focus on the philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of the ethical and societal considerations and the public and policy concerns inherent in nanotechnology research and development. These issues include both individual and societal problems, and include individual health, wellbeing and human enhancement, human integrity and autonomy, distribution of the costs and benefits, threats to culture and tradition and to political and economic stability. Additionally there are meta-issues including the neutrality or otherwise of technology, designing technology in a value-sensitive way, and the control of scientific research.
期刊最新文献
Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence An Integrated Embodiment Concept Combines Neuroethics and AI Ethics – Relational Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Neurotechnologies and the Future of Work Addressing Multiple Responsibilities in the Early Stages of R&D with Provenance Assessment Gene Editing Cattle for Enhancing Heat Tolerance: A Welfare Review of the “PRLR-SLICK Cattle” Case Representations of (Nano)technology in Comics from the ‘NanoKOMIK’ Project
×
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