搜索结果：Ethics

Digital ethics, also known as computer ethics or information ethics, is now a lively field that draws a lot of attention, but how did it come about and what were the developments that lead to its existence? What are the traditions, the concerns, the technological and social developments that pushed digital ethics? How did ethical issues change with digitalisation of human life? How did the traditional discipline of philosophy respond? The article provides an overview, proposing historical epochs: 'pre-modernity' prior to digital computation over data, via the 'modernity' of digital data processing to our present 'post-modernity' when not only the data is digital, but our lives themselves are largely digital. In each section, the situation in technology and society is sketched, and then the developments in digital ethics are explained. Finally, a brief outlook is provided.

This chapter discusses the ethics of generative AI. It provides a technical primer to show how generative AI affords experiencing technology as if it were human, and this affordance provides a fruitful focus for the philosophical ethics of generative AI. It then shows how generative AI can both aggravate and alleviate familiar ethical concerns in AI ethics, including responsibility, privacy, bias and fairness, and forms of alienation and exploitation. Finally, the chapter examines ethical questions that arise specifically from generative AI's mimetic generativity, such as debates about authorship and credit, the emergence of as-if social relationships with machines, and new forms of influence, persuasion, and manipulation.

We present Ethics Readiness Levels (ERLs), a four-level, iterative method to track how ethical reflection is implemented in the design of AI systems. ERLs bridge high-level ethical principles and everyday engineering by turning ethical values into concrete prompts, checks, and controls within real use cases. The evaluation is conducted using a dynamic, tree-like questionnaire built from context-specific indicators, ensuring relevance to the technology and application domain. Beyond being a managerial tool, ERLs help facilitate a structured dialogue between ethics experts and technical teams, while our scoring system helps track progress over time. We demonstrate the methodology through two case studies: an AI facial sketch generator for law enforcement and a collaborative industrial robot. The ERL tool effectively catalyzes concrete design changes and promotes a shift from narrow technological solutionism to a more reflective, ethics-by-design mindset.

The integration of continuous data from built-in sensors and Large Language Models (LLMs) has fueled a surge of "Sensor-Fused LLM agents" for personal health and well-being support. While recent breakthroughs have demonstrated the technical feasibility of this fusion (e.g., Time-LLM, SensorLLM), research primarily focuses on "Ethical Back-End Design for Generative AI", concerns such as sensing accuracy, bias mitigation in training data, and multimodal fusion. This leaves a critical gap at the front end, where invisible biometrics are translated into language directly experienced by users. We argue that the "illusion of objectivity" provided by sensor data amplifies the risks of AI hallucinations, potentially turning errors into harmful medical mandates. This paper shifts the focus to "Ethical Front-End Design for AI", specifically, the ethics of biometric translation. We propose a design space comprising five dimensions: Biometric Disclosure, Monitoring Temporality, Interpretation Framing, AI Stance, and Contestability. We examine how these dimensions interact with context (user- vs. system-initiated) and identify the risk of biofeedback loops. Finally, we propose "Adaptive Disclos

There is a significant body of work looking at the ethical considerations of large language models (LLMs): critiquing tools to measure performance and harms; proposing toolkits to aid in ideation; discussing the risks to workers; considering legislation around privacy and security etc. As yet there is no work that integrates these resources into a single practical guide that focuses on LLMs; we attempt this ambitious goal. We introduce 'LLM Ethics Whitepaper', which we provide as an open and living resource for NLP practitioners, and those tasked with evaluating the ethical implications of others' work. Our goal is to translate ethics literature into concrete recommendations and provocations for thinking with clear first steps, aimed at computer scientists. 'LLM Ethics Whitepaper' distils a thorough literature review into clear Do's and Don'ts, which we present also in this paper. We likewise identify useful toolkits to support ethical work. We refer the interested reader to the full LLM Ethics Whitepaper, which provides a succinct discussion of ethical considerations at each stage in a project lifecycle, as well as citations for the hundreds of papers from which we drew our recomm

I give a short introduction to data ethics. I begin with some background information and societal context for data ethics. I then discuss data ethics in mathematical-science education and indicate some available course material. I briefly highlight a few efforts -- at my home institution and elsewhere -- on data ethics, society, and social good. I then discuss open data in research, research replicability and some other ethical issues in research, and the tension between privacy and open data and code, and a few controversial studies and reactions to studies. I then discuss ethical principles, institutional review boards, and a few other considerations in the scientific use of human data. I then briefly survey a variety of research and lay articles that are relevant to data ethics and data privacy. I conclude with a brief summary and some closing remarks. My focal audience is mathematicians, but I hope that this chapter will also be useful to others. I am not an expert about data ethics, and this chapter provides only a starting point on this wide-ranging topic. I encourage you to examine the resources that I discuss and to reflect carefully on data ethics, its role in mathematics

Ethics based auditing (EBA) is a structured process whereby an entitys past or present behaviour is assessed for consistency with moral principles or norms. Recently, EBA has attracted much attention as a governance mechanism that may bridge the gap between principles and practice in AI ethics. However, important aspects of EBA (such as the feasibility and effectiveness of different auditing procedures) have yet to be substantiated by empirical research. In this article, we address this knowledge gap by providing insights from a longitudinal industry case study. Over 12 months, we observed and analysed the internal activities of AstraZeneca, a biopharmaceutical company, as it prepared for and underwent an ethics-based AI audit. While previous literature concerning EBA has focused on proposing evaluation metrics or visualisation techniques, our findings suggest that the main difficulties large multinational organisations face when conducting EBA mirror classical governance challenges. These include ensuring harmonised standards across decentralised organisations, demarcating the scope of the audit, driving internal communication and change management, and measuring actual outcomes.

In Artificial Intelligence (AI), language models have gained significant importance due to the widespread adoption of systems capable of simulating realistic conversations with humans through text generation. Because of their impact on society, developing and deploying these language models must be done responsibly, with attention to their negative impacts and possible harms. In this scenario, the number of AI Ethics Tools (AIETs) publications has recently increased. These AIETs are designed to help developers, companies, governments, and other stakeholders establish trust, transparency, and responsibility with their technologies by bringing accepted values to guide AI's design, development, and use stages. However, many AIETs lack good documentation, examples of use, and proof of their effectiveness in practice. This paper presents a methodology for evaluating AIETs in language models. Our approach involved an extensive literature survey on 213 AIETs, and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected four AIETs: Model Cards, ALTAI, FactSheets, and Harms Modeling. For evaluation, we applied AIETs to language models developed for the Portuguese language, conducting 35

In this paper, we situate the educational movement of "Ethics in Mathematics," as outlined by the Cambridge University Ethics in Mathematics Project, in the wider area of mathematics ethics education. By focusing on the core message coming out of Ethics in Mathematics, its target group, and educational philosophy, we set it into relation with "Mathematics for Social Justice" and Paul Ernest's recent work on ethics of mathematics. We conclude that, although both Ethics in Mathematics and Mathematics for Social Justice appear antagonistic at first glance, they can be understood as complementary rather than competing educational strategies.

Explainable AI (XAI) is often promoted with the idea of helping users understand how machine learning models function and produce predictions. Still, most of these benefits are reserved for those with specialized domain knowledge, such as machine learning developers. Recent research has argued that making AI explainable can be a viable way of making AI more useful in real-world contexts, especially within low-resource domains in the Global South. While AI has transcended borders, a limited amount of work focuses on democratizing the concept of explainable AI to the "majority world", leaving much room to explore and develop new approaches within this space that cater to the distinct needs of users within culturally and socially-diverse regions. This article introduces the concept of an intercultural ethics approach to AI explainability. It examines how cultural nuances impact the adoption and use of technology, the factors that impede how technical concepts such as AI are explained, and how integrating an intercultural ethics approach in the development of XAI can improve user understanding and facilitate efficient usage of these methods.

AI is transforming the existing technology landscape at a rapid phase enabling data-informed decision making and autonomous decision making. Unlike any other technology, because of the decision-making ability of AI, ethics and governance became a key concern. There are many emerging AI risks for humanity, such as autonomous weapons, automation-spurred job loss, socio-economic inequality, bias caused by data and algorithms, privacy violations and deepfakes. Social diversity, equity and inclusion are considered key success factors of AI to mitigate risks, create values and drive social justice. Sustainability became a broad and complex topic entangled with AI. Many organizations (government, corporate, not-for-profits, charities and NGOs) have diversified strategies driving AI for business optimization and social-and-environmental justice. Partnerships and collaborations become important more than ever for equity and inclusion of diversified and distributed people, data and capabilities. Therefore, in our journey towards an AI-enabled sustainable future, we need to address AI ethics and governance as a priority. These AI ethics and governance should be underpinned by human ethics.

A super-intelligent AI- society should be based on inclusion, so that all members of society can equally benefit from the possibilities new technologies offer in everyday life. At present, the digital society is overwhelming many people, a large group of whom are older adults, whose quality of life has been undermined in many respects by their difficulties in using digital technology. However, this silver segment should be kept involved as active users of digital services and contribute to the functioning and development of a super-intelligent, AI-enabled society. The paper calls for action-oriented design thinking that considers the challenge to improve the quality of life, with an emphasis on ethical design and ethical impact assessment.

We consider the question of what properties a Machine Ethics system should have. This question is complicated by the existence of ethical dilemmas with no agreed upon solution. We provide an example to motivate why we do not believe falling back on the elicitation of values from stakeholders is sufficient to guarantee correctness of such systems. We go on to define two broad categories of ethical property that have arisen in our own work and present a challenge to the community to approach this question in a more systematic way.

We extend Langdon Winner's idea that artifacts have politics into the realm of mathematics. To do so, we first provide a list of examples showing the existence of mathematical artifacts that have politics. In the second step, we provide an argument that shows that all mathematical artifacts have politics. We conclude by showing the implications for embedding ethics into mathematical curricula. We show how acknowledging that mathematical artifacts have politics can help mathematicians design better exercises for their mathematics students.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems exert a growing influence on our society. As they become more ubiquitous, their potential negative impacts also become evident through various real-world incidents. Following such early incidents, academic and public discussion on AI ethics has highlighted the need for implementing ethics in AI system development. However, little currently exists in the way of frameworks for understanding the practical implementation of AI ethics. In this paper, we discuss a research framework for implementing AI ethics in industrial settings. The framework presents a starting point for empirical studies into AI ethics but is still being developed further based on its practical utilization.

Video games are one of the richest and most popular forms of human-computer interaction and, hence, their role is critical for our understanding of human behaviour and affect at a large scale. As artificial intelligence (AI) tools are gradually adopted by the game industry a series of ethical concerns arise. Such concerns, however, have so far not been extensively discussed in a video game context. Motivated by the lack of a comprehensive review of the ethics of AI as applied to games, we survey the current state of the art in this area and discuss ethical considerations of these systems from the holistic perspective of the affective loop. Through the components of this loop, we study the ethical challenges that AI faces in video game development. Elicitation highlights the ethical boundaries of artificially induced emotions; sensing showcases the trade-off between privacy and safe gaming spaces; and detection, as utilised during in-game adaptation, poses challenges to transparency and ownership. This paper calls for an open dialogue and action for the games of today and the virtual spaces of the future. By setting an appropriate framework we aim to protect users and to guide devel

Principles of fairness and solidarity in AI ethics regularly overlap, creating obscurity in practice: acting in accordance with one can appear indistinguishable from deciding according to the rules of the other. However, there exist irregular cases where the two concepts split, and so reveal their disparate meanings and uses. This paper explores two cases in AI medical ethics, one that is irregular and the other more conventional, to fully distinguish fairness and solidarity. Then the distinction is applied to the frequently cited COMPAS versus ProPublica dispute in judicial ethics. The application provides a broader model for settling contemporary and topical debates about fairness and solidarity. It also implies a deeper and disorienting truth about AI ethics principles and their justification.

This book chapter delves into the pressing need to "queer" the ethics of AI to challenge and re-evaluate the normative suppositions and values that underlie AI systems. The chapter emphasizes the ethical concerns surrounding the potential for AI to perpetuate discrimination, including binarism, and amplify existing inequalities due to the lack of representative datasets and the affordances and constraints depending on technology readiness. The chapter argues that a critical examination of the neoliberal conception of equality that often underpins non-discrimination law is necessary and cannot stress more the need to create alternative interdisciplinary approaches that consider the complex and intersecting factors that shape individuals' experiences of discrimination. By exploring such approaches centering on intersectionality and vulnerability-informed design, the chapter contends that designers and developers can create more ethical AI systems that are inclusive, equitable, and responsive to the needs and experiences of all individuals and communities, particularly those who are most vulnerable to discrimination and harm.