社会人工智能五大原则的统一框架

L. Floridi, Josh Cowls
{"title":"社会人工智能五大原则的统一框架","authors":"L. Floridi, Josh Cowls","doi":"10.1162/99608F92.8CD550D1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. As a result, many organizations have launched a wide range of initiatives to establish ethical principles for the adoption of socially beneficial AI. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of proposed principles threatens to overwhelm and confuse. How might this problem of ‘principle proliferation’ be solved? In this paper, we report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. We assess whether these principles converge upon a set of agreed-upon principles, or diverge, with significant disagreement over what constitutes ‘ethical AI.’ Our analysis finds a high degree of overlap among the sets of principles we analyze. We then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. Four of them are core principles commonly used in bioethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. On the basis of our comparative analysis, we argue that a new principle is needed in addition: explicability, understood as incorporating both the epistemological sense of intelligibility (as an answer to the question ‘how does it work?’) and in the ethical sense of accountability (as an answer to the question: ‘who is responsible for the way it works?’). In the ensuing discussion, we note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, technical standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts.KeywordsAccountability; Autonomy; Artificial Intelligence; Beneficence; Ethics; Explicability; Fairness; Intelligibility; Justice; Non-maleficence.","PeriodicalId":23712,"journal":{"name":"Volume 4 Issue 1","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"356","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society\",\"authors\":\"L. Floridi, Josh Cowls\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/99608F92.8CD550D1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. As a result, many organizations have launched a wide range of initiatives to establish ethical principles for the adoption of socially beneficial AI. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of proposed principles threatens to overwhelm and confuse. How might this problem of ‘principle proliferation’ be solved? In this paper, we report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. We assess whether these principles converge upon a set of agreed-upon principles, or diverge, with significant disagreement over what constitutes ‘ethical AI.’ Our analysis finds a high degree of overlap among the sets of principles we analyze. We then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. Four of them are core principles commonly used in bioethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. On the basis of our comparative analysis, we argue that a new principle is needed in addition: explicability, understood as incorporating both the epistemological sense of intelligibility (as an answer to the question ‘how does it work?’) and in the ethical sense of accountability (as an answer to the question: ‘who is responsible for the way it works?’). In the ensuing discussion, we note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, technical standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts.KeywordsAccountability; Autonomy; Artificial Intelligence; Beneficence; Ethics; Explicability; Fairness; Intelligibility; Justice; Non-maleficence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23712,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 4 Issue 1\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"356\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 4 Issue 1\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/99608F92.8CD550D1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 4 Issue 1","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/99608F92.8CD550D1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 356

摘要

人工智能(AI)已经对社会产生了重大影响。因此,许多组织已经发起了广泛的倡议,为采用对社会有益的人工智能建立道德原则。不幸的是,大量提出的原则可能会压倒和混淆。如何解决这个“原则扩散”的问题?在本文中,我们报告了对几组最引人注目的人工智能伦理原则进行细粒度分析的结果。我们评估这些原则是否会聚在一组商定的原则上,或者在什么构成“道德人工智能”方面存在重大分歧。“我们的分析发现,我们分析的原则之间存在高度重叠。然后,我们确定了一个由道德人工智能的五个核心原则组成的总体框架。其中四个是生命伦理学中常用的核心原则:善、无害、自主和正义。在我们的比较分析的基础上,我们认为还需要一个新的原则:可解释性,理解为结合认识论意义上的可解性(作为对“它是如何工作的”这个问题的回答)和伦理意义上的问责性(作为对“谁对它的工作方式负责?”这个问题的回答)。在随后的讨论中,我们注意到这一道德框架的局限性,并评估了这一道德框架对未来在广泛背景下为道德人工智能制定法律、规则、技术标准和最佳实践的影响。自治;人工智能;善行;道德规范;Explicability;公平;可理解性;正义;没有恶行。
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
A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. As a result, many organizations have launched a wide range of initiatives to establish ethical principles for the adoption of socially beneficial AI. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of proposed principles threatens to overwhelm and confuse. How might this problem of ‘principle proliferation’ be solved? In this paper, we report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. We assess whether these principles converge upon a set of agreed-upon principles, or diverge, with significant disagreement over what constitutes ‘ethical AI.’ Our analysis finds a high degree of overlap among the sets of principles we analyze. We then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. Four of them are core principles commonly used in bioethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. On the basis of our comparative analysis, we argue that a new principle is needed in addition: explicability, understood as incorporating both the epistemological sense of intelligibility (as an answer to the question ‘how does it work?’) and in the ethical sense of accountability (as an answer to the question: ‘who is responsible for the way it works?’). In the ensuing discussion, we note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, technical standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts.KeywordsAccountability; Autonomy; Artificial Intelligence; Beneficence; Ethics; Explicability; Fairness; Intelligibility; Justice; Non-maleficence.
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
Performance Investigation of a Concentrated Solar Dish for Heating Applications Date Seed Extract as Green Corrosion Inhibitor for Steel in Hydrochloric Medium Treatment of Crude Oil Wastewater Using Low-cost Modified Jordanian Kaolin Sorbent FACTORS AFFECTING INVESTOR’S DECISION-MAKING IN SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES IN PAKISTAN PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AND ITS ASSOCIATED FACTORS IN BANKING EMPLOYEES OF PAKISTAN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
×
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