Research in AI has Implications for Society: How do we Respond?

Henrik Skaug Sætra; Eduard Fosch-Villaronga

doi:10.5771/2747-5174-2021-1-60

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 1–2 Cover 1–2
- 3–6 Editorial 3–6
- 7–8 Contributors 7–8
- 9–9 Content 9–9
- 10–21 Hybrid Reality: The Rise of Deepfakes and Diverging Truths Miriam Meckel, Léa Steinacker Miriam Meckel, Léa Steinacker 10–21
- 22–29 Clout Chasing for the Sake of Content Monetization: Gaming Algorithmic Architectures with Self-Moderation Strategies Thales Bertaglia, Adrien Dubois, Catalina Goanta Thales Bertaglia, Adrien Dubois, Catalina Goanta 22–29
- 30–43 On The Verge of the Hybrid Mind Surjo Soekadar, Jennifer Chandler, Marcello Ienca, Christoph Bublitz Surjo Soekadar, Jennifer Chandler, Marcello Ienca, Christoph Bublitz 30–43
- 44–51 Beyond the Binary: Building a Quantum Future Shohini Ghose Shohini Ghose 44–51
- 52–59 Addressing the Legal Dimensionof Quantum Computers Valentin Jeutner Valentin Jeutner 52–59
- 60–73 Research in AI has Implications for Society: How do we Respond? Henrik Skaug Sætra, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga Henrik Skaug Sætra, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga 60–73
- 74–85 Tackling the Grand Challenge of Algorithmic Opacity Through Principled Robust Action Alexander Buhmann, Christian Fieseler Alexander Buhmann, Christian Fieseler 74–85
- 86–100 Experimental Regulations for AI: Sandboxes for Morals and Mores Sofia Ranchordas Sofia Ranchordas 86–100
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
No access

Morals & Machines , page 60 - 73

Research in AI has Implications for Society: How do we Respond?

Autoren

Henrik Skaug Sætra Eduard Fosch-Villaronga

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2747-5174-2021-1-60
- ISSN: 2747-5174
- ISSN online: 2747-5182
Zusammenfassung

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers previously unimaginable possibilities, solving problems faster and more creatively than before, representing and inviting hope and change, but also fear and resistance. Unfortunately, while the pace of technology development and application dramatically accelerates, the understanding of its implications does not follow suit. Moreover, while mechanisms to anticipate, control, and steer AI development to prevent adverse consequences seem necessary, the current power dynamics on which society should frame such development is causing much confusion. In this article we ask whether AI advances should be restricted, modified, or adjusted based on their potential legal, ethical, societal consequences. We examine four possible arguments in favor of subjecting scientific activity to stricter ethical and political control and critically analyze them in light of the perspective that science, ethics, and politics should strive for a division of labor and balance of power rather than a conflation. We argue that the domains of science, ethics, and politics should not conflate if we are to retain the ability to adequately assess the adequate course of action in light of AI‘s implications. We do so because such conflation could lead to uncertain and questionable outcomes, such as politicized science or ethics washing, ethics constrained by corporate or scientific interests, insufficient regulation, and political activity due to a misplaced belief in industry self-regulation. As such, we argue that the different functions of science, ethics, and politics must be respected to ensure AI development serves the interests of society.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers previously unimaginable possibilities, solving problems faster and more creatively than before, representing and inviting hope and change, but also fear and resistance. Unfortunately, while the pace of technology development and application dramatically accelerates, the understanding of its implications does not follow suit. Moreover, while mechanisms to anticipate, control, and steer AI development to prevent adverse consequences seem necessary, the current power dynamics on which society should frame such development is causing much confusion. In this article we ask whether AI advances should be restricted, modified, or adjusted based on their potential legal, ethical, societal consequences. We examine four possible arguments in favor of subjecting scientific activity to stricter ethical and political control and critically analyze them in light of the perspective that science, ethics, and politics should strive for a division of labor and balance of power rather than a conflation. We argue that the domains of science, ethics, and politics should not conflate if we are to retain the ability to adequately assess the adequate course of action in light of AI‘s implications. We do so because such conflation could lead to uncertain and questionable outcomes, such as politicized science or ethics washing, ethics constrained by corporate or scientific interests, insufficient regulation, and political activity due to a misplaced belief in industry self-regulation. As such, we argue that the different functions of science, ethics, and politics must be respected to ensure AI development serves the interests of society.
Share