Slashdot Mirror
Can We Build Ethics Into Automated Decision-Making? (oreilly.com)
"Machines will need to make ethical decisions, and we will be responsible for those decisions," argues Mike Loukides, O'Reilly Media's vice president of content strategy:
We are surrounded by systems that make ethical decisions: systems approving loans, trading stocks, forwarding news articles, recommending jail sentences, and much more. They act for us or against us, but almost always without our consent or even our knowledge. In recent articles, I've suggested the ethics of artificial intelligence itself needs to be automated. But my suggestion ignores the reality that ethics has already been automated... The sheer number of decisions that need to be made means that we can't expect humans to make those decisions. Every time data moves from one site to another, from one context to another, from one intent to another, there is an action that requires some kind of ethical decision...
Ethical problems arise when a company's interest in profit comes before the interests of the users. We see this all the time: in recommendations designed to maximize ad revenue via "engagement"; in recommendations that steer customers to Amazon's own products, rather than other products on their platform. The customer's interest must always come before the company's. That applies to recommendations in a news feed or on a shopping site, but also how the customer's data is used and where it's shipped. Facebook believes deeply that "bringing the world closer together" is a social good but, as Mary Gray said on Twitter, when we say that something is a "social good," we need to ask: "good for whom?" Good for advertisers? Stockholders? Or for the people who are being brought together? The answers aren't all the same, and depend deeply on who's connected and how....
It's time to start building the systems that will truly assist us to manage our data.
The article argues that spam filters provide a surprisingly good set of first design principles. They work in the background without interfering with users, but always allow users to revoke their decisions, and proactively seek out user input in ambiguous or unclear situations.
But in the real world beyond our inboxes, "machines are already making ethical decisions, and often doing so badly. Spam detection is the exception, not the rule."
Ethical problems arise when a company's interest in profit comes before the interests of the users. We see this all the time: in recommendations designed to maximize ad revenue via "engagement"; in recommendations that steer customers to Amazon's own products, rather than other products on their platform. The customer's interest must always come before the company's. That applies to recommendations in a news feed or on a shopping site, but also how the customer's data is used and where it's shipped. Facebook believes deeply that "bringing the world closer together" is a social good but, as Mary Gray said on Twitter, when we say that something is a "social good," we need to ask: "good for whom?" Good for advertisers? Stockholders? Or for the people who are being brought together? The answers aren't all the same, and depend deeply on who's connected and how....
It's time to start building the systems that will truly assist us to manage our data.
The article argues that spam filters provide a surprisingly good set of first design principles. They work in the background without interfering with users, but always allow users to revoke their decisions, and proactively seek out user input in ambiguous or unclear situations.
But in the real world beyond our inboxes, "machines are already making ethical decisions, and often doing so badly. Spam detection is the exception, not the rule."
I'm not sure I consider the Amazon directing you to Amazon products as a very good example of "Automation", since that has a giant bias plugged into the engine by Amazon. You are trying to ascribe ethics to a system where humans are obviously in firm and direct control over results.
To me considering ethics and automation is more of a general concern where the automation is making derived choices that are pretty far removed from human directive. I think you can build in ethics to try and be kind to people, it's not impossible - but even the choice to try and include some kind of ethical directive, is still really at the mercy of humans and how much time and effort they are willing to put into such things...
Perhaps the most effective solution is for some company to come up with a really kick-ass ethical choice helper for automation, that becomes so popular that companies are clamoring to include it. Otherwise it will get placed in the asme leaky lifeboat that Accessibility is always placed in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can we build ethics into Human decision-making? Only once we have done this do we have any hope of building it into AI.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Currently the various expert systems and automation have zero morals and ethics. Their only criteria are maximize profit, minimize risk. If someone ends up dying in screaming agony, meh.
This is just another extension of the principle that the only people you can get on the phone are people with no power to say yes. Their job isn't to make an ethical decision, their job is to make sure the people with authority to make a decision don't have to personally feel the consequences of tossing ethics out the window.
Same with the software. The programmers are just following orders, it's not like they're using the software on actual people. The people using it are just following orders, it's not like they wrote the software to make those decisions. The people at the top just specified software and ordered it's use. It's not actual people, just boring statistical data on a quarterly report.
Of course, in reality the software is an extension of those who give the orders. They just want people to blame "the computer" for as long as possible, just like in the '70s when, according to the CSR on the phone, the computer was infallible.
I paid for the car. I expect it to protect my life first.
Have gnu, will travel.
I think you can build in ethics to try and be kind to people
Ethics is not about being kind to people it is about doing the right thing. For example, a system to spot cheating on an exam is not going to be particularly kind to the people it catches and it would be highly unethical for it to be kind by ignoring the cheating. Since doing the "right thing" is subjective and extremely contextual any ethics in automated decision making is going to have to be directed by a human and, since people may vary on what they believe is ethical, very hard to get right.
Even something very basic like not killing people is not going to be easy to implement e.g. should an automated car prioritize the lives of the occupants over others or vice versa? It's made even harder by the fact that computer algorithms do not comprehend the ethical consequences of their choices: all the programmer does is tweak the parameters to make it behave in a way that they believe is ethical which ultimately means the "ethics" will be determined by large corporations or, if regulated, governments which is frankly rather a depressing thought givengovernments' and companies' past records on making ethical choices.
Who gets to decide who's ethics to follow.