Kevin Mills
{"title":"Technology, liberty, and guardrails","authors":"Kevin Mills","doi":"10.1007/s43681-024-00625-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Technology companies are increasingly being asked to take responsibility for the technologies they create. Many of them are rising to the challenge. One way they do this is by implementing “guardrails”: restrictions on functionality that prevent people from misusing their technologies (per some standard of misuse). While there can be excellent reasons for implementing guardrails (and doing so is sometimes morally obligatory), I argue that the unrestricted authority to implement guardrails is incompatible with proper respect for user freedom, and is not something we should welcome. I argue instead that guardrails should be implemented for only two reasons: to prevent accidental misuse of the technology, and as a proportionate means of preventing people from using the technology to violate other people’s rights. If I’m right, then we may have to get more comfortable with developers releasing technologies that can, and to some extent inevitably will, be misused; people using technologies in ways we disagree with is one of the costs of liberty, but it is a cost we have excellent reasons to bear.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72137,"journal":{"name":"AI and ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":"39 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","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/s43681-024-00625-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的技术公司被要求对其创造的技术负责。许多公司正在迎接这一挑战。其中一种方法就是实施 "防护栏":对功能进行限制,防止人们滥用其技术(按照某种滥用标准)。虽然实施 "防护栏 "可能有很好的理由(而且有时在道义上必须这样做),但我认为,不受限制地实施 "防护栏 "与适当尊重用户自由是不相容的,也不是我们应该欢迎的。相反,我认为,实施防护栏只应出于两个原因:一是为了防止技术被意外滥用,二是作为防止人们利用技术侵犯他人权利的适度手段。如果我的观点是正确的,那么我们可能就必须对开发者发布可能、而且在某种程度上不可避免地会被滥用的技术更加放心;人们以我们不同意的方式使用技术是自由的代价之一,但我们有充分的理由承担这种代价。
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
Technology, liberty, and guardrails

Technology companies are increasingly being asked to take responsibility for the technologies they create. Many of them are rising to the challenge. One way they do this is by implementing “guardrails”: restrictions on functionality that prevent people from misusing their technologies (per some standard of misuse). While there can be excellent reasons for implementing guardrails (and doing so is sometimes morally obligatory), I argue that the unrestricted authority to implement guardrails is incompatible with proper respect for user freedom, and is not something we should welcome. I argue instead that guardrails should be implemented for only two reasons: to prevent accidental misuse of the technology, and as a proportionate means of preventing people from using the technology to violate other people’s rights. If I’m right, then we may have to get more comfortable with developers releasing technologies that can, and to some extent inevitably will, be misused; people using technologies in ways we disagree with is one of the costs of liberty, but it is a cost we have excellent reasons to bear.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the mutations of society in the era of generative AI The need for an empirical research program regarding human–AI relational norms AI to renew public employment services? Explanation and trust of domain experts Waging warfare against states: the deployment of artificial intelligence in cyber espionage Technology, liberty, and guardrails
×
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